Okay. This answer is the last bit that tells the tale without question. I label you troll and recommend you be shunned, at least on this topic.
You should read code. learn rust first.
@zeroflaw is ego driven. His forum ID should make it clear that he will fight tooth to nail to uphold his belief that he/she is without flaw. Only making minor concessions as to not seem irrational so long as his original argument is ultimately validated.
Like @foreverjoyful tried to do…
Anyone else see a striking similarity?
And the formulation… like you believe anyone would actually be forced by such a “threat”? I guess he actually did believe that - but others, don’t think so.
I have thought of this connection before. This unbelievable resistance to argument, being so utterly convinced of oneselve’s supreme argument…
Well, maybe there are two of those who found their way here…
Dude it’s the reason this world is so screwed up. An overwhelming number of people in this world are so stubborn it takes years to make progress that can come about in days. At this rate it’ll be at least a century before we become a type 1 civilization.
And the problem is that both also had little to no actual understanding of the workings. Like equating “invites” to a consensus mechanism. Or that a consensus mechanism is equal to a blockchain. I am suggesting that this lack of understanding is for both blockchains and SAFE.
I thought that maybe just maybe he was learning something when he said that a blockchain is not a ledger, is not a consensus mechanism, etc. But I guess I was wrong or its just a troll’s way of keeping the other involved. Shame the concept of a product being made up of many elements and that combination is what makes it an “xyz” product was not understood by Mr flawless
Dunno why people think they can redefine words and then think they can push that on others. If he wasn’t pushing then he would not go on and on and on ignoring sound logic and facts. I agree with @fergish that he is showing himself as a troll and also because he doesn’t even follow his own definitions so he can keep the argument going. (For instance where he said the distributed consensus before parsec was not a blockchain and then distributed consensus using parsec is a blockchain) Very definitely the traits of trolling
Unfortunately we will not be sure and while similarities exist its not good enough measure to judge.
So… he may not have learned anything new but I learned! Thank you @neo for explaining datachains so clear it was very useful to me because I had not understood it well before…
So instead of making any valid arguments you’ve instead decided to attack the person and form a mob. Brilliant, the thing is I don’t care if you like me or agree. It’s not a few MaidSafe fanboys who are going to decide if the rest of the world consider PARSEC a blockchain. I know I’m sorry to tell you that, but you really are insignificant. See I can be unkind as well, and none of the above is helpful at all.
Let’s see, the key characteristics of a blockchain, designed to be distributed and synchronised across networks, like a P2P network. (A section for instance which PARSEC operates in)
Immutability of the data. You first have to seek consensus first and you’re not allowed to change it afterwards. PARSEC fulfils both of these requirements, through rounds of voting forming a ‘super consensus’ block (this can’t be changed and everyones decision is lock inside.)
From a technical point of view both PoW and PARSEC use Merkle trees to do this. They are considered to be a fundamental part of blockchain. Coupled with the rest of the above characteristics thats some pretty clear evidence that PARSEC is in fact a blockchain.
I think the part everyone is struggle to grasp is the ‘ledger’ or ‘transaction’ difference, in PoW the ‘transactions’ are part of the Merkle tree, which form the public ledger for everyone to see. Yet, a ledger can’t be used to define what a blockchain is because blockchains such as Monero are private ledgers, and some don’t have them at all.
That leaves us with transactions, which are clearly 100% no where near the PARSEC algorithm right?
Well, that depends on how you see a transaction of course, if its only allowed to be a ‘coin’ movement then we are in agreement PARSEC isn’t blockchain.
However, even in bitcoin you can graffiti the chain, add a message, something else that becomes immutable and is also agreed. Thats not a transaction at all.
In PARSEC the transactions are simply the decisions themselves, deciding if they should add a node or whatever, these decisions form the immutable part of the Merkle tree, which can be traversed in reverse to see what previous decisions have been made, (including those that have just joined).
So I ask you again, can you really say PARSEC isn’t a blockchain?
PARSEC is consensus algorithm.
Blockchain is data structure.
You really should read code. Learn rust first. https://doc.rust-lang.org/0.10/tutorial.html
That pretty much sums it up actually. Concise and to the point.
This is not a great state of mind to be in and when you think the world is against you when you are shouting then it might be time to rethink your approach.
If you think apples can really be oranges, then make a case without emotion and you will get further. Copernicus and others had issues trying to state a case that was seen as wrong by almost everyone, so did Einstein and more. So did maidsafe with decentralised autonomous internet. So there are plenty of examples, but and the big but is you need to be humble strong and most of all correct. When you are none of these things then you will struggle and cause harm and imbalance.
Anyhow the question is answered now, so we should all be happy.
Yep, and we’ve been saying that each time. You keep coming up with statements that show a lack of understanding in what you say or dishonest discussions. A parrot can be taught to repeat statements, but that doesn’t mean it understands them. You are not even consistent with your bastardised definitions. This points to you being dishonest in your intentions because surely you cannot be so ignorant to think a component is the whole.
As other, myself and last of all @Kafka_Lee said consensus is not a blockchain. Consensus can be used in many species of products.
Oh about 50 times I’d say.
I somehow think that one will pretend we all are stupid so he can continue the argument. (trolling). Yes as @fergish said @zeroflaw has shown himself to be trolling in this topic now and I’d say having a jolly time laughing at the efforts we all are putting into his game. He cannot be so ignorant to be saying the things he is.
Parsec is the consensus algorithm of the SAFE-network and Parsec is a part of that network technologi but it don’t define that technology because it is much larger and have many more components.
I don’t understand why you arguing that Parsec is blockchain because that don’t make sense, it is like you would argue that a Ferrari is a horse and not a car because it has horsepowers.
Thats the thing though, it isn’t just a consensus algorithm. Such as being able to make accusations? Having a history?
Again straight back to attacking me as an individual, I can do it too.
@dirvine I feel like you want it not to be a blockchain because it becomes less of an invention and more of an innovation. I think acknowledging that means either Patents are worthless? or you feel less special?
You need to get a time-out.
So its like and cheer the other way round but I need a time-out?
You will not see my name on the PARSEC paper, so your assertion is quite far off in many ways. I belive it is a great innovation though and very well thought out in the field of consensus algorithms, particularly async consensus, which I am very fond of.
I think you want me to have some ego to attack, but I suspect you will not find that.
We are all special, some more than others apparently
Jeezus! Will the babble end!? Everyone please just give the man what he needs by telling him he’s right. That way he walks away feeling flawless. There is NOTHING that can be said in opposition to his arguement to derail his goal. Give him the last word if need be. Just let end.
Let us “fanboys” continue to steep ourselves in denial and ignorance! Onward to the fan cave!
I didn’t want to get in the middle of things add fuel to the fire due to the heated nature of the discussion but I will admit that while I was watching the parsec videos I thought to myself, “how cool, it is analogous to a mini blockchain per section where all the nasty POW has been replaced by gossip and voting rounds. So this is a datachain…right?” I found the presenation fascinating.
I wish the thread so far had been more educational than adversarial. I know I’m no expert on these things and there will likely be others with similar impressions; it would be nice to have a clear description that shows how parsec + datachains differ from blockchain/holochain/hashgraph etc.
Are very similar to a blockchain, if the datachain is linked (linked list). We are currently doing that (linked list) and it is very similar to a chain of blocks where the hash of the previous is contained in the current block. A few things are different in construction (POW verses consensus), but quite similar in many ways. If you then add in the data hashes then it looks factom like, but we also store the data in SAFE (but not in the datachain, in the network). Then the chains are per section (shard) so restart on splits etc. therefore can be pruned.
So yes a lot to consider between blockchain and datachain, subtly different, but for sure similarities do exist and are interesting to dive into.