New Video & Blog Post: Dynamic Membership

@nevel at no point have I said this project looks like TRON.

I simply find the obsession of naming things different around here to stand out from the crowd a little strange when you are surrounded by similarities. I guess only time will tell how the world views PARSEC.

To stand-up and say its not a blockchain after I just watched that video is incredibly difficult. Blockchain hasn’t even got a proper definition yet as the technology is so new and evolving. I think in the general public the ‘super consensus’ :rofl: will be PARSEC is blockchain technology.

@Nigel please feel free to define blockchain for me.

You know what time it is? It is time for “Is PARSEC а blockchain or not: a discussion”! :smiley:


Why bother? You most likely won’t agree and I think it’s already been well enough defined anyways.


It’s ten years old, and a lot of people do have a clear definition of it. Some say Bitcoin has the only real one and EOS for example isn’t a blockchain. Really depends on who you talk to. But if you look at SAFE there are some differences:

  • No proof of work, proof of stake or delegated proof of stake.

Also on SAFE not all these data blocks are public. If you want to join SAFE as a Vault you might end up in group ABC and get their graph back to genesis. But at the same time you won’t be able to see the graph of group XYZ. So it’s more local for groups (Vaults) in the network, not public to all.

So there you go, I don’t think the term Blockchain should be used here.


What are the reasons for considering it not to be a blockchain?

if you ‘define car’ with google you get “a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.” I think Tesla would like to update that definition.

Wouldn’t the lightning network and side chains fall under the same exception. Yet bitcoin is unequivocally blockchain.

My point is PARSEC has an essence of blockchain, and I actually think that gives the algorithm and theory of PARSEC a strong foundation, and infers some trust that the idea is possible / will work.

Do not throw twists into his fire… He has already decided and knows… It is pointless to argue with such people, they are always right… They only hear what they want to hear… and most often this is their own voice :wink:

David very rightly directly agreed with him without arguing, because that’s the only way… @zeroflaw PARSEC is blockchain on a server2server network, Breathe calmly :slight_smile:


You know what blockchains are similar to a bookkeepers ledger that is backed up many times. Does that mean I can go around saying you should not call it a blockchain to differentiate it but just accept and say its a accountant’s ledger with some tweaks?

Yes I agree that those whose only background in ledgers is blockchain will see datachains as a blockchain like thing and PARSEC as the consensus component. But of course they would be wrong since as David pointed out datachains and PARSEC are about whats happening NOW and not about coin transactions that happened in the past and need proving and set into the ledger.

Those of us who have experiences in the world of finances (eg home budgets with kids, business) can see the difference a mile off. Its rather like chalk and cheese. One is a ledger of past transactions being kept for proving the transactions. Whereas the other is for ordering events so that current and future things can happen in an ordered way.

I suppose it can be considered as illustrated as a roadway at the intersection.

  • Blockchain is the council worker on the street corner recording the cars and which road&direction they are travelling. A ledger of car movements and that can be queried and prove a person’s last trip was in such-n-such a car and what road and what direction.
  • SAFE Datachain&PARSEC securely records the events so that the traffic lights can be changed in such a fashion to facilitate the flow of traffic. And not be fooled by a person with a picture of 100 cars trying to fool the lights. Or the pedestrian pushing the walk button a hundred times.

So the difference is between a person recording the traffic and the policeman standing in the intersection directing traffic and remembers what he did previously.

They are for totally different purposes and while on the surface some of the methods seem similar the differences far outweigh the similarities and as you get to know the mechanisms then the differences become obvious

The person’s background will play a large part in how they interpret ANY video on datachains and PARSEC. And for the person whose background is blockchains then its not until the person listen’s or reads enough that they can see the difference between a person recording traffic in a ledger and the police man directing traffic.

Education is certainly the key and its not going to happen in an introduction style of video, but will take some realising that safe is not about being a blockchain but an entirely different thing altogether. Datachains & PARSEC is not even going to be considered by the average user since they will be your average Janes & Joes going to safe sites, commenting on forums, storing their holiday pictures, etc etc. And BTW they don’t even know what blockchains are


The video and article are GREAT!! I really get a concept of what’s going on, though only from high altitude (which is as close as I need to get, probably).

The one thing that occurred to me while watching the video: What happens is a node returns to the gossip before it is finally voted out? Or does the sequence happen so fast that there’s not any grace for a temp outage?


As all events are fully ordered that nodes gossip would be an invalid gossip, or should I say any gossip from it after the consensus that it was removed. This is an area where total order is quite good.


I wasn’t talking about after the final vote. I’m considering where the node is missing for a time, but returns before the final consensus to vote it out. Or would the various rounds happen to fast to make a difference?


If that node could not gossip to more than 2/3 of nodes before they claim it is dead then it loses. If it did then it would still be alive and not considered dead. To be clear this happens in routing, so routing is told, this node seems weird, what should we do. Then routing says kill it. At that point PARSEC casts its vote to the other nodes. If 2/3 agree then the node is off line. If the node managed to talk to some nodes it may save itself though. [edit, to be clear if we have voted kill then we cannot change that vote as its gossiped]


That’s pretty much what I figured. I’d just like to see that demo’d in the video in some future iteration.


Excellent video. Deep enough but accessible to anyone with minimal technical knowledge of this world.

At this moment, much better than the previous simple videos, aimed at the average Joe, and that were hidden among thousands of other similar videos.

I think this is the way. First attract a small, but important, sector of people from the crypto and decentralization world before looking for ordinary people.


Thats not what blockchain is at all, as you say thats simply a backup.

Just because bitcoin uses PoW as a consensus protocol for coin transactions, does not mean the technology can’t be used for any arbitrary decisions.

PoW is a solution that solves the Byzantine Generals Problem, with the added benefit that you know everyone knows what you know.
PARSEC is a solution that solves the Byzantine Generals Problem, with the added benefit that you know everyone knows what you know and agrees.

Hardly chalk and cheese is it? say more like cheddar and wensleydale.
*I’m ignore the personal attack and ridiculous unfounded statement at the top of that qoute.

Sounds to me like you are comparing something analogue / basic to something advanced and digital. The blockchain illustration isn’t even valid or correct. Thats just label this whole section for what it is, propaganda.

While I can agree with the top half of this statement, you finish it off with propaganda again.

Why because blockchain is inefficient and won’t scale? You can fix something and make it better without the definition changing.

Nice clearly explained video. As the discussion earlier above illistrates, using the words “Block”, “Genesis Block” in conjunction with consensus is going to confuse a lot of people in relation to blockchain and It will only get worse as the project goes more mainstream.

I may have missed it, but has there been any discussion on distancing Parsec consensus from these “already used for a different purpose” terms?

1 Like

Hey if you are going to respond by misquoting and misrepresenting then whats the point of trying to discuss things

For instance you reduce what I said to just one bit and then attacked that and basically called me an idiot. And you blinking well know I did not try to claim a blockchain is a backup so its deliberate

Bye - you don’t want to change so I suspect an agenda


Great video on explaining Parsec from a practical point-of-view. It’s perfect!

Here’s where your misunderstanding might lie. PoW does not mathematically solve that problem. (It’s probabilistic, like @dirvine said.)

I like how you try and (re-)define PARSEC, but I don’t find it helpful it at all. Most of your comments are semantic discussions in and of itself. What do you seek? People confirming that indeed things can be defined your way? It’s all subjective, there are no absolute definitions. Think about words having multiple definitions; you’re just adding definitions.

It would be more helpful if you technically point out the similarities and dissimilarities; that opens up discussions about our understanding of these concepts.


I agree that PoW is an indirect solution to that problem. It’s the part where they distribute knowledge and you know everyone is in agreement (bitcoin is slower to get to this state through confirmations), thats also important in the definition of a blockchain.


It almost sounds like you’re saying PARSEC is more Blockchain than the Bitcoin Blockchain is.


Blockchain is strength through distribution of control. I always thought that the ‘PoW’ in bitcoin was a workaround, it achieved distribution at small scale, but at large scale mining pools and ASICs empower the rich and undermine what blockchain stands for. Altcoins inherit this flaw and added some adjustments, but in the end still suffer from its drawbacks. Its why I’m here, why I’ve been watching since 2014.

At the beginning the project said it wasn’t blockchain, maybe it meant it wasn’t a flawed blockchain.
So the Safe Network to me has more potential to be a true blockchain than bitcoin ever was.