Decades of research in both cryptography and distributed systems has extensively studied the problem of state machine replication, also known as Byzantine consensus. A consensus protocol must satisfy two properties: consistency and liveness. These properties ensure that honest participating nodes agree on the same log and dictate when fresh transactions get added. They fail, however, to ensure against adversarial manipulation of the actual ordering of transactions in the log. Indeed, in leader-based protocols (almost all protocols used today), malicious leaders can directly choose the final transaction ordering. To rectify this problem, we propose a third consensus property: transaction order- fairness. We initiate the first formal investigation of order-fairness and explain its fundamental importance. We provide several natural definitions for order-fairness and analyze the assump- tions necessary to realize them. 1 We also propose a new class of consensus protocols called Aequitas . Aequitas protocols are the first to achieve order-fairness in addition to consistency and liveness. They can be realized in a black-box way using existing broadcast and agreement primitives (or indeed using any consensus protocol), and work in both synchronous and asynchronous network models.
Do you genuinely come to biz thinking you can have a stimulating discussion about something academic? Or are you just that bored and lonely that you post things like this hoping to be perceived as intelligent and interesting? There are people that spend their entire professional lives working on this stuff, if you’re genuinely interested in learning or talking about it, go somewhere like stackoverflow or honestly Reddit would even be better than here. No one is going to engage you here, and I specifically am not because I know you are a neophyte/dilettante at best and have only gotten interested in any sort of CS because you made a little money on shitcoins.
Landon Hall
this has nothing to do with chainlink
Jack Brooks
Fug you
Wyatt Clark
Agree, I discuss anything important on SO, here I’ll just call you a cuck for reading some whitepaper, it’s all about memes and sentiment
(Cuck)
Luke Rivera
>go somewhere like stackoverflow or honestly Reddit would even be better than here Wrong Oftentimes there is really good discussion. Moderated forums with usernames and voting are no-go zones and have become internet ghettos at this point.
Thanks for your concern troll post, at least it was bump.
> No one is going to engage you here, and I specifically am not because I know you are a neophyte/dilettante at best and have only gotten interested in any sort of CS because you made a little money on shitcoins. Lol I worked in quantum computers during my graduate studies, more on the hardware and physics side, but the cryptography and mathematics always interested me.
Also an interesting note on “synchrony” Was always used to talking about synchronous and asynchronous machines so it’s interesting to think of that concept in the context of a consensus protocol.
No they haven’t unless you are frequenting forums that are discussing subjective nonsense. Also, if that is your education, then discuss the CS with your academic peers. When I want to discuss something academic, I talk with peers on Facebook or email. The best you’re going to get here is some kid who took some discrete math or very basic set theory and vaguely remembers what transitivity is.
you cant have an actual discussion with this retard. you're wasting your time
Brayden Diaz
>usernames turn forums to ghettos! >posts on biz with a username
Ok...
Tyler Clark
youtu.be/0-Q3cp3cp88 >why do you come to an anonymous forum and insist on having a username? Because (((their))) time is up Because I’m a missionary man: youtu.be/0-Q3cp3cp88
>I need a saga >What’s the saga >It’s songs for the deaf >You can’t even hear it youtu.be/mS8LvHT_zcQ
>Also, if that is your education, then discuss the CS with your academic peers PhD’s and grad students aren’t as knowledgeable as people think. Most lack the fundamentals and they don’t question scientific dogmas. After working in superconducting josephson junctions for QCs I realized that the machines they’re making in labs now are not truly quantum. Like I’ve said in other threads, those QCs in labs are pseudo quantum computers. I suspect the consensus protocols developed by teams like Ari Juels’ in Cornell are the key to solving that problem. Hardware mechanisms for overcoming quantum de coherence when reading and writing is essential for developing a true QC and blockchain will be revealed as the precursor to quantum machines and time travel. It’s also why I didn’t pursue a doctorate and stopped at my graduate studies and went into crypto. I knew that’s where the future was.
A characteristic feature of spatial dimensions is that a particle can move in any direction or remain at rest, while in a time dimension it always propagates in one direction (what we call aging in everyday language). So, three time dimensions of the superluminal system with one spatial dimension (1+3) would thus mean that particles inevitably age in three times simultaneously. The ageing process of a particle in a superluminal system (1+3), observed from a subluminal system (3+1), would look as if the particle was moving like a spherical wave, leading to the famous Huygens principle (every point on a wavefront can be treated itself as a source of a new spherical wave) and corpuscular-wave dualism.
