4 ms·
> There is a huge scientific merit of the algorithms for reaching a distributed consensus when not all participants can be trusted Not quite. Distributed conse
by FabHK 1y ago
> There is a huge scientific merit of the algorithms for reaching a distributed consensus when not all participants can be trusted
Not quite. Distributed consensus had been solved in the 1980's theoretically and the 1990's practically, even in the presence of byzantine nodes. What Nakamoto consensus was first in was to extend this to the permissionless setting (at enormous expense & inefficiency, and with no benefits, in my view; though enabling large scale rule breaking or "censorship resistance", which some see as a benefit).
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago> Not quite. Distributed consensus had been solved in the 1980's theoretically and the 1990's practically, even in the presence of byzantine nodes. Could you give me some literature references on this topic, because I guess this is something new to me?
- ycombinatrix 1y agoPaxos Protocol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)
- aleph_minus_one 1y agoThank you.
- FabHK 1y agoI highly recommend Tim Roughgarden's lecture series Foundation's of Blockchain. It covers it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNJGPI0fuFA&list=PLEGCF-WLh2RLOHv_xUGLqRts_9JxrckiA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNJGPI0fuFA&list=PLEGCF-WLh2...
- aleph_minus_one 1y agoThank you.