Re: operating-system or co-operating systems? Re: Coherent (modern) definition of RWW

On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 14:11, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2021-05-19 12:19:24)
> > On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 10:15, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Henry Story (2021-05-19 09:55:26)
> > > > The blockchain is distributed but not decentralised: it requires
> > > > one view of the truth.
> > > >
> > > > In democracies we need to take into account the multi-perspectival
> > > > nature of reality.
> > > > There may be one truth - as an ideal - but that can only be
> > > > attained by discussions among incompatible, often contradictory
> > > > views of reality. That is why a multi-agent system is the right
> > > > place to start thinking about these things. Local consensus first,
> > > > global consensus later, perhaps and only if needed.
> > >
> > > Yes!
> > >
> > > Even if Safenet is not the solution, their problem description might
> > > be helpful:
> > > https://safenetwork.tech/faq/#what-is-close-group-consensus
> >
> >
> > There's quite a few approaches to consensus:
>
> ...and then you continue to talk only about _blockchain-based
> algorithms, apparently.
>
> Reason I recommend taking inspiration from Safenet is to _avoid_
> blockchain and its inherent scalability issues.
>

Sorry yes, we should not be limited to block chain technologies, but
appreciate this new innovation and what it brings to the table


>
>
> > It's important that any time oriented consensus system operates in the
> > spirit of royalty free protocols
>
> Certainly.
>
> Safenet follows that principle - see e.g.
>
> https://medium.com/safenetwork/parsec-a-paradigm-shift-for-asynchronous-and-permissionless-consensus-e312d721f9d8
> and
>
> https://safenetforum.org/t/maidsafe-dev-update-may-24-2018-introducing-parsec/23647/14
> (author of that latter post is David Irvine, inventor of Safenet).
>

From the article:

"he SAFE Network cannot — and does not — use a blockchain"

Seemed light on detail as to what PARSEC is, what the threat surface is
etc.  However, no reason to exclude this, provided it's in the spirit of an
open / royalty free protocol

Just a case of whether it generates a network effect and enough people that
want to work on it.  What we could do is provide integration points to that
network via URIs which should work with our tooling.  We could make a list
of p2p networks we'd like to integrate with

I've been trying to use the term timestamp server (which is used to order
blocks) rather than block chain

In all aspects, I think we should have a tolerant approach to innovation


>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private