I've got a question:
Am 02.08.2014 01:07, schrieb Adam Ierymenko:
I just started a personal blog, and my first post includes some thoughts I've wanted to get down for a while:
In this blog post you wrote:
> I designed the protocol to be capable
toward a more decentralized design in the future without disrupting
existing users, but that's where it stands today.
My situation: we wrote a p2p network for replicating state machines
That would be a kind of a "global database no single individual
controls"; I actually like you "blind idiot god" term. We always
thought of it implementing some "general will" like the legal system
in a constitutional state. Not so different, isn't it?
So far we concentrated on building a practical, working system
(e.g., self-hosting). The networking layer is just a plug in. And
the default plugin was always intended to be replace with
state-of-the-art implementations. It will probably not scale and
hence we never tested how it scales. When looking at zerotier I'm
asking: could this possibly be a transport plugin?
What we need:
A) Our identifiers are self-sealing. That is, they are required to
match some hash of the (initial) content and 4 more predefined meta
data elements. (We need this to prove their correctness; like in
Ricardian Contracts etc.)
So we'd need to register one such identifier per peer in a DHT.
B) We need some kind of byzantine (Paxos alike) protocol, which is
capable to convey hash verifying agreement on the proposed update.
(This is slightly more than most paxos implementations provide,
since those are for some reason beyond me, designed to TRUST the
origin of an update.) Fortunately we have this code. So what we
really need is "network traffic" between peers identified by some
In understand that zerotier provides (B). But since I see "some
kind" of "noise" as identifier in zerotier, I'm unsure how easy it
would be to get (A) too.
Further I take you "capable of evolving" as a warning: how far does
the implementation deviate?
As you are sharing my reservations wrt. Bitcoin while at the same
time looking for trust and accountability you might want to look at
how those alternatives compare. The 51% of hash power is just one
way. Byzantine agreement requires 67% of traitors. However the
latter are *well known* and contractually bound. Advantages: a)
speed: transactions take a fraction of a second over WAN, b)
privacy: data lives precisely where you expect it to be and is not
leaked elsewhere. Downsides: Bitcoin is open-join. Anybody can
participate. With Askemos you get close-join. Like WhatsApp: the
owner needs to accept the other party before messages are taken.
Actually I'm currently gathering more info towards a fair
comparison. Comments welcome: