News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Gryadka is not Paxos, so it's probably wrong. Parent comment

Re:Gryadka is not Paxos, so it's probably wrong by jancsika on Friday March 24, 2017 @03:33PM (#13951572)
> Each half would append their own blocks to the blockchain happily, and depending on the chain lengths added, once the partition went away there would be no good way to reconcile.

Why do you say that? The chain with the greatest total difficulty wins.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gryadka is not Paxos, so it's probably wrong by kybernetikos on Friday March 24, 2017 @05:14PM (#13952269)
Which means that all the people who wrote to successfully and relied on the other chain over the last week suddenly lose all their transactions. That's not what anyone means by CP.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gryadka is not Paxos, so it's probably wrong by nordsieck on Friday March 24, 2017 @03:37PM (#13951606)
That is not an acceptable form of reconciliation in a CP system.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gryadka is not Paxos, so it's probably wrong by eternalban on Friday March 24, 2017 @05:25PM (#13952345)
Bitcoin is AP not CP.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gryadka is not Paxos, so it's probably wrong by Dylan16807 on Saturday March 25, 2017 @07:10AM (#13955029)
The hard problem is consistency, in terms of tradeoffs and implementation. Pure AP is easy.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Gryadka is not Paxos, so it's probably wrong by xyzzyz on Friday March 24, 2017 @04:03PM (#13951821)
What if both happen to have the same total difficulty? Granted, it is unlikely, but so is unlikely a failure of non-paxos system with lease timeouts on the order of ~10 minutes.
[ Parent | on HN ]