sarah
/
fieldnotes
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Edits

This commit is contained in:
Sarah Jamie Lewis 2018-07-09 19:30:47 -07:00
parent 0fb4115c5f
commit b4bc2efad6
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
content/dags-and-decentralization.md
View File

@ -38,9 +38,9 @@ That mechanism is missing in many proposals. Without the convergence provided by
Implementing "trusted witnesses" solves that problem. Trusted witnesses are nodes that are known to have greater connectivity, or are otherwise trusted to maintain the *canonical* global state. While it is conjecture, I believe that any mechanism to "decentralize" such a witness will rapidly resemble a blockchain.
Delegated consensus, can be seen as a special case of "trusted witnesses", albeit one with a sound economic argument - peers with a greater stake in the system are unlikely to harm it, otherwise they would harm their own interests. Following this logic, a new trend of hybrid systems propose to replace mining with a voting procedure, weighted by address balances.
Vote driven consensus, where peers directly or indirectly vote (weighted by their stake in the system) on new blocks, can be seen as a special case of "trusted witnesses", albeit one with a sound economic argument - peers with a greater stake in the system are unlikely to harm it, otherwise they would harm their own interests.
There are arguments to be made about the relative centralization of proof-of-work verses coin distribution that I won't go into. I instead want to address my core complaint of such constructions: availability.
(There are arguments to be made about the relative centralization of proof-of-work verses stake distribution that I won't go into. I instead want to address my core complaint of such constructions: availability.)
To ensure that transactions are confirmed in a timely manner, voting must also happen in a timely manner.