coinculture

4 ms·

1.
by coinculture 9y ago
Not quite - see other comments about needing a trusted local source the first time you sync up. Otherwise, forks are never tolerated. If the keys leak, and there's a new history, it will be ignored by all nodes who have been online.
2.
by coinculture 9y ago
You're probably right, we could have. The primary reason to use our own is to support Merkle proofs of the state. For the Jepsen tests, it wasn't really needed, and may have been smarter to just wrap something else. But we didn&#x
3.
by coinculture 9y ago
It means we simply give two different nodes the same signing key and get them to sign conflicting proposals and votes. A more complicated Byzantine fault would take into consideration the structure of the underlying protocol to try to thwar
4.
by coinculture 9y ago
It's not some single centralized trusted source. It's a local trusted source. Like a friend or a shop or a website you make payments on that uses the network and has been keeping up to date. Ideally folks should check multiple sou
5.
by coinculture 9y ago
That's right. The first time you sync up, you're particularly vulnerable. You need to authenticate first against a trusted source.
6.
by coinculture 9y ago
I think it's still a big experiment and there's a lot to figure out around the right state machines and the right models for computation in these systems. We hope that Cosmos and Tendermint help that experiment along
7.
by coinculture 9y ago
Thanks! 1) We're looking to get the Cosmos Hub up before the year is out, and to roll out production support in 2018. 2) Great, if you like. But if you want to support light clients you will need a scheme for producing Merkle proofs. S
8.
by coinculture 9y ago
Good points. Tendermint aims to be a general purpose consensus system - how the validators are actually chosen and changed is outside Tendermint's domain. All Tendermint wants to know is an initial set, and leaves it up to the App to t
9.
by coinculture 9y ago
Tendermint consensus is more like classic BFT consensus than Nakamoto. It provides deterministic finality/safety with every block, unlike the probabilistic 6-block safety of Nakamoto. Yes, 2/3 are expected to be honest. Validator
10.
by coinculture 9y ago
Tendermint/Cosmos | Software Engineer: Consensus, Networking, Formal Verification | Toronto, Berlin, Bay Area | Full-time If you have what it takes to design and implement protocol standards for the blockchain/cryptocurrency indus
11.
by coinculture 9y ago
Have you considered using Tendermint? We just published the results of a few months of Jepsen testing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15175984
12.
by coinculture 9y ago
Thanks! A year ago we were just two guys working on this project on the side without any funding. Now we're a full time team of talented devs swinging in full force. The comments and docs continue to improve, and we're excited tha
13.
by coinculture 9y ago
Tendermint doesn't use Proof of Work (PoW). PoW is hard to test with Jepsen because it only supports probabilistic safety, which means the chain can constantly reorganize. If I'm not mistaken, Jepsen would consider PoW's rout
14.
by coinculture 9y ago
It means "arbitrary". Byzantine faults refer to "any arbitrary behaviour by the machine". The term was coined by Leslie Lamport in the early 80s when he defined the Byzantine Generals Problem
15.
by coinculture 9y ago
Thanks for the compliments! We do really care about quality software design and testing, and we're looking to hire folks that share our values: https://tendermint.com/careers Lots of people are using Tendermint. The bi