But the previous was not the invites. Thus my pointing it out.
One consensus mechanism was replaced by another, How does that make the second a blockchain if the first was not? That is a nonsensical statement. The previous mechanism did not fail so to summarise
- The previous consensus which is being used in alpha 2 is
- NOT the invites
- is working fine
- is NOT mathematically provable and potential for some issues to arise where consensus may not come to a conclusion quick enough could arise.
- We were running vaults at home with that consensus and it did not fail.
- the failure was not consensus but the network filling up with data due to spamming
- Due to the potential in a very large network for this previous consensus mechanism to fail meant that the dev team were always on the look out for provable one. And they used some technologies out there and brought them together and created
- it is mathematical provable to come to consensus in reasonable time
- it is a consensus mechanism, NOT a blockchain
- consensus mechanisms are not blockchains - come on.
You do seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings and thus are coming to the wrong conclusions.
PARSEC is a consensus mechanism. THAT IS ALL. it is only you who believes it is a blockchain.
That is what SAFE is all about! And to put in the nicest terms possible - This is the reason SAFE is not a blockchain.
Consensus between untrusted parties is NOT a blockchain. Pure and simple.
While a blockchain may involve consensus its not what makes a blockchain.
Honestly this twisting of words has been going on for too long. I’m sure you’ll find something to fault and claim SAFE is a blockchain again.
Well I’ll leave you to your misapplications of fact and say goodnight.