Hi all - we’ve just released a new video and blog post that should be of interest to everyone. If you’ve been following the project, you’ll know that a significant stage along the road to the release of SAFE-Fleming is the integration of PARSEC into the Routing layer (the ‘brains’ of the Network, if you like).
As we explain, being open and permissionless is crucial for the SAFE Network - and dynamic membership in this context explains how the Network can still guarantee that the nodes on the Network will agree on the order of events that have taken place and ensure that those details are shared in a secure way with new nodes as they join.
In the video, we show an example which you can run for yourself (head along to https://github.com/maidsafe/parsec) in order to see graphs that will illustrate what’s going on. The example shows exactly what happens as each round of gossip is generated and how different nodes then take this information to arrive at the same sequence of stable blocks - despite the fact that nodes are constantly being added and removed.
Hopefully this will act as a useful taster for the topic and answer a few questions that there might be out there. So please feel free to comment, share and let us know what you think!
This is ordered consensus, so agreement, not a lottery or amount of work thing. So block-chains achieve agreement (not consensus) on a transaction set and sequence of next blocks. They can fork almost continually and like btc select say the longest fork as the correct one.
Then history, blockchain is a historic record of stuff than has happened, not what is happening. So you can see a difference here (PARSEC graph shows how stuff happened and consensus was recorded). This is where data chains come in, to provide history of that ordered consensus, similar to a blockchian and history of blocks. In a blockchian you do not want to go from genesis to today as it could be a malicious fork. You really want to go from today, backwards. In a datachain with a history of ordered consensus, then you can traverse from genesis, from today or from a checkpoint and they will all be correct.
It can grow to be quite large, not blockchian scale large, but large. From my previous post here, you will see we can prune this history with checkpoints etc. So not too large, but in any case there are opportunities to prune.
Blockchain more like datachain PARSEC is a BFT algorithm. So the diff is there really.
You cannot really do this. The blocks are locked by signatures. You would need to go back in history to nodes, steal their keys at some point and make different votes. I mean it’s mathematically provable to traverse the snapshot from a known last point in time, or from now backwards as well.
Very possibly, we have not finalised that yet, it’s currently ongoing. It can get quorum snapshots though to spot attempts at manipulation if needed.
I’ve watched the video 4 times now. In the video, the fact that you call ‘super consensus’ a block, which is formed by ‘rounds of voting’, it’s so difficult to tell my brain to not call this a blockchain technology.
interesting events (‘transactions’) + rounds of voting (‘work’) = super consensus (‘block’)
I know vaults aren’t servers and PARSEC isn’t blockchain around these parts of town. But the similarities are in my opinion close enough.
PoW is a solution to solve this problem Satoshi Nakamoto e-mail. PARSEC would also solve that same problem, in the time it takes for all nodes to gossip with each other and vote reaching ‘super consensus’ aka a block.
The PARSEC achievement is anyone else think it sounds a bit blockchain like?
In fact would it not be extremely cool PR to implement the problem in Satoshi email in PARSEC and post it as a solution on Reddit demonstrating the efficiency of PARSEC?
I think it sounds similar, but IMO a blockchain is more than just a chain of transactions - it includes the consensus mechanism too.
As I understand it, a data chain does not include a consensus mechanism; it is simply a list (graph) of actions which had been decided by an external consensus mechanism (PARSEC with close groups, node aging, etc).
Perhaps you could argue that data chains are actually a subset of a blockchain, in so much as they represent a similar way to record a sequence of transactions. It is a similar data structure/database format. However, blockchains seem quite different in how they append data to it, especially in how nodes agree.
Not really a BFT means the algorithm tolerates malice. PARSEC goes further and detects that to remove nodes (blockchain does neither). So PARSEC takes BFT moves it to ABFT and then adds malice detection, all of which is quite far from a blockchain.
quite far from what definition of blockchain? A common definition is a public ledger but most ledgers aren’t even public! A blockchain definition
A blockchain is a tamper-evident, shared digital ledger that records transactions in a public or private peer-to-peer network. Distributed to all member nodes in the network, the ledger permanently records, in a sequential chain of cryptographic hash-linked blocks , the history of asset exchanges that take place between the peers in the network.
In my eyes PARSEC is close to that definition, (in context to how it’s described in the video)