Re:Faster CRDTs (2021)
by jakelazaroff on Thursday August 29, 2024 @07:46AM
(#41389805)
IMO semantic “intent preservation” is an application-level concern that can affect which CRDTs are chosen, but it’s irrespective of whether the underlying data structure is a CRDT. The rules are that state merges must be commutative, associative and idempotent; if blockchains fulfill all three criteria, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
> The rules are that state merges must be commutative, associative and idempotent;
Yes!
> if blockchains fulfill all three criteria, I don’t see why they wouldn’t count.
Blockchains definitely do not fulfill all three criteria!
> IMO semantic “intent preservation” is an application-level concern that can affect which CRDTs are chosen, but it’s irrespective of whether the underlying data structure is a CRDT.
You're correct!
Whether or not a data structure is a CRDT is entirely a function of whether or not its Merge operation is associative, commutative, and idempotent. Application-level concerns, including (but not limited to) semantic intent preservation, are totally irrelevant.
Re:Faster CRDTs (2021)
by jakelazaroff on Thursday August 29, 2024 @05:25PM
(#41395447)
Okay, back to my original skeptical position lol. I don’t understand why CRDTs seem to attract so many people claiming that their favorite computing concepts count!