4 ms·
Could this be used to prevent double spends by marking such a spend as 'an illegal update'? I imagine not, but I wonder what limitation of CRDTs would prevent
by rocqua 5y ago
Could this be used to prevent double spends by marking such a spend as 'an illegal update'?
I imagine not, but I wonder what limitation of CRDTs would prevent this.
- Ar-Curunir 5y agospends don’t commute: if two transactions both consume $1, and the senders account only contains $1, there’s no way to apply both transactions and end up in a valid state.
- rocqua 5y agoThat makes sense. Thanks.
- dboreham 5y agoMoney requires consensus. I think it's the FLP Impossibility result that ultimately prevents CRDT-type (eventually consistent) schemes from implementing consensus. Researchers in eventual consistency pretty much just assume this. e.g. in the original CRDT papers -- bottom of page 10 in : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06358.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.06358.pdf; top of page 11 in : https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00609399v1/document https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00609399v1/document