3 ms·
At least at a high level, this sounds a lot like Avalanche? Each node tells their neighbors about something and eventually a phase transition is passed that mak
by saurik 5y ago
At least at a high level, this sounds a lot like Avalanche? Each node tells their neighbors about something and eventually a phase transition is passed that makes it super difficult for anyone to convince anyone something different happened? (Which itself claims to be revolutionary but has always felt like an example of an Ising model to me, which others have used for consensus.)
My biggest concern, at a lower level, is the mechanism used to try to get away from this algorithm having "turns"--which the real world does not have as there is no shared clock due to distance effects (which is made all the worse due to the Internet not satisfying triangle inequality)--seems to rely on a fixed diameter and some timing assumptions that squick me (as someone who always wants to find asynchronous solutions).
- gritzko 5y agoOn the formal side, SC is deterministic and nodes only talk to their friends, which is the opposite of Avalanche. The article has some calculations for the case of real-world time, but in the end it is always a question of acceptable timeouts. In a fully asynchronous system, deterministic consensus is impossible. What does it mean practically is a different story though. Regarding distance effects, if node clocks are well synchronized (like, NTP well, not TrueTime well) and the time step is long enough, then the heartbeat should work fine, I believe.