polynya
@polynya
My attempt to define "strict global consensus": - A strictly ordered and objective list of transactions, - that everyone on the network agrees to exactly, - in near real time If some element of an application necessarily requires these, use blockchains; for everything else there are much better solutions
8 replies
8 recasts
67 reactions
Cassie Heart
@cassie
why does strict global consensus require strict ordering of all transactions as one? it is easily possible to have distinct sets of transactions that do not conflict, splintered as sets that do have conflicts and need to attain strict ordering.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
raquo
@raquo.eth
agreed, but only if participants in the network default to untrusted. If you control all participants (even across great distance) or you can expect them to behave well because of external factors, don't use blockchain
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
depatchedmode
@depatchedmode
Boom. Couldn’t agree more. We were building everywhere.computer for everything else.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mathis
@mgd
Question: why "objective"? Is not it already contained in "everyone on the network agrees to exactly"?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
parseb
@parseb.eth
glad you back; working on governance framework that does that.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
LammaKing
@lammaking25
@cassie explains well order is not required for agreement on a final state, but both mak an assumption about what a transaction is. 2+1=3 is the same as 1+2=3. But (2^3)^5 is not the same as (5^3)^2 . You could loosen the definition of strict to mean an agreement on when order matters.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
