A World of Trust – eMunie Consensus Primer

[monsterer]

1) No, there is a set interval of 60 seconds (which is also the transaction failure duration) where eligible nodes are valid.  So say that the time now is 00:01:00, a set of nodes are valid, at 00:02:00 a different set of nodes are valid based on the endorsements made in the interval 00:00:00 -> 00:01:00.  This should allow even the most latent of nodes to keep pace.

2) Hmm I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  If nodes go offline, then come online again later, they will receive endorsements again, which will increase the eligible set of nodes again.

Yes I'm aware of that, the FBA algorithm is the replacement for that broken one.

1) I suppose it depend on what bounds the latency is under. I agree that 60 latency is hilariously long for nominal operations, but its always the edge cases which cause the problems

2) If nodes go off-line never to return, doesn't that reduce the set eligible set to 0 on the limit?

Regarding FBA - I thought that was the broken design, not the new one?

[1715221496]

1715221496

[1715221496]

1715221496

[1715221496]

1715221496

[Fuserleer]

1) No, there is a set interval of 60 seconds (which is also the transaction failure duration) where eligible nodes are valid.  So say that the time now is 00:01:00, a set of nodes are valid, at 00:02:00 a different set of nodes are valid based on the endorsements made in the interval 00:00:00 -> 00:01:00.  This should allow even the most latent of nodes to keep pace.

2) Hmm I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  If nodes go offline, then come online again later, they will receive endorsements again, which will increase the eligible set of nodes again.

Yes I'm aware of that, the FBA algorithm is the replacement for that broken one.

1) I suppose it depend on what bounds the latency is under. I agree that 60 latency is hilariously long for nominal operations, but its always the edge cases which cause the problems

2) If nodes go off-line never to return, doesn't that reduce the set eligible set to 0 on the limit?

Regarding FBA - I thought that was the broken design, not the new one?

1) It would have to be a really bad day for the internet globally if all of the eligible nodes at any time are seeing latencies approaching 60 seconds.

2) Eventually yeah, but then that will likely also mean the network is dead and there aren't any client nodes coming online to make transactions either.  Same as if all the miners went offline never to return.

[monsterer]

1) It would have to be a really bad day for the internet globally if all of the eligible nodes at any time are seeing latencies approaching 60 seconds.

2) Eventually yeah, but then that will likely also mean the network is dead and there aren't any client nodes coming online to make transactions either.  Same as if all the miners went offline never to return.

1) Of course, steady state you don't expect to see latencies like that, but connection interruptions and crashes do happen. How does a crashed node, which has been disconnected for, say 1 day know how to resync and who the correct nodes are to listen to?

2) What I mean is that if you have set of N nodes, who propose future nodes M from the subset of N, nodes going offline will lead to 0 eligible nodes if M must always be a subset of N.

[jl777]

there is no way to predict which SN will get the next transaction as it is based on human behavior

Ahem. You need to prove mathematically and holistically that is a random process and not subject to game theory. That is essentially the fundamental problem with PoS, its entropy is bounded unlike PoW where the entropy is external.

How does http://blog.cr.yp.to/20140205-entropy.html relate to the assertion that bounded entropy is bad? Bitcoin's reused R value attacks arise since it requires new entropy for each transaction, while with the curve25519 this does not seem to be the case.

James

[okiefromokc]

1) It would have to be a really bad day for the internet globally if all of the eligible nodes at any time are seeing latencies approaching 60 seconds.

2) Eventually yeah, but then that will likely also mean the network is dead and there aren't any client nodes coming online to make transactions either.  Same as if all the miners went offline never to return.

1) Of course, steady state you don't expect to see latencies like that, but connection interruptions and crashes do happen. How does a crashed node, which has been disconnected for, say 1 day know how to resync and who the correct nodes are to listen to?

2) What I mean is that if you have set of N nodes, who propose future nodes M from the subset of N, nodes going offline will lead to 0 eligible nodes if M must always be a subset of N.

Well, any eMunie client, new or offline for several days, can fully sync even when only non-service nodes such as a client only.  Some of the client only also have the full ledgers. I proved this by syncing a new client with just the client only faucet as the only active node.