jaekwon

That's nice, but in JS it's a necessary evil. Callback hell is not a desirable feature.

Re dependencies:

Glide takes our team 90% of the way, but is a bit glitchy (need to wipe ~/.glide sometimes) & lacks a command for `npm link` type functionality.

Lmk if there is a better title possible.

We're not even using the right metric system, so our export abilities are crippled, right? I remember trying to find parts for my 3d printer in the US.

Whats the benefit of HB over Tendermint? There's a good reason we don't use threshold signatures... to guarantee accountability. We could add threshold signatures on top of Tendermint, but for most use cases this isn't very helpful (yet).

In any case, building on TMSP will make Texas future proof to any consensus engine that favors safety. Let's discuss.

We should plug Tendermint into Tezos as well.

Kadena seems like a solid team, kudos for their work.

Smart contracts require you to work in a completely new language and toolset.

You don't need smart contracts to create a blockchain application, if you use the right libraries (e.g. go-merkle) and write your application to be deterministic. See Basecoin in the page below:

http://tendermint.com/ecosystem

If you want the benefits of Tendermint BFT consensus but w/ Ethereum's virtual machine, take a look at Ethermint.

http://github.com/tendermint/ethermint

Disclaimer: I'm a founder at Tendermint, the OG BFT blockchain engine. ;)

We're also looking for technical writers, or people will skills that include technical writing.

For all of our job listings, since we're a team this is a good opportunity to define good culture.

Tendermint | Golang Developers | SFBA & REMOTE

Like Bitcoin or Ethereum? Ping us if you want to create open-source blockchain infrastructure.

Computer science & open-source background preferred. Willingness to learn BFT algorithms required.

We are a small & funded team.

http://github.com/tendermint/tendermint http://forum.tendermint.com:3000 http://cosmos.network <- check out whitepaper

Email us for more information. hired@tendermint.com

I'm curious why people are downvoting this.

Awesome. One question... why STM/ARM? I'm not an expert in the available choices, but I'm generally curious about RiskV devices because they're fully open. Are the designs of this chip at least available, and audit-able, or could it contain something like Intel's HM?

Yeah you're right, it gets weird with close calls.

pro A: 51% pro B: 49%

If B miners move to attack A, it means B will be successfully double-spent sooner. I'm not sure how best to coordinate the attack vs defense, but pretty sure ultimately the majority would win out. And yes, there is mutual destruction in play.

This is less of an issue with say, 67% and 33%.

Anyways, I also argue that there's only room for 1 secure PoW blockchain, and that's basically Bitcoin.

They're both true.

A minority-miner pow-chain quickly loses credibility. If say a 67% coalition of miners say that a hard-fork will not happen, then the 33% coalition of miners are in a bind, even if the exchanges choose to support the 33% -- which they won't, because it's too vulnerable to double-spend attacks.

Ergo, the minority-miner pow-chain must either also hard-fork the mining algorithm (to require investment in new hardware), or hard-fork to a non-PoW system.

I do understand your definition of a hard-fork. What I'm talking about is a protocol-extrinsic, cryptoeconomic justification of my argument. There's a game of chicken involved, for example.

See my other response.

51% can, but 49% can't, because the 51% can attack the 49% easily, using the 49% rules, on the 49% chain. So 49% of miners can't force a protocol change, unless the community (majority economy) can also agree on which PoW algo (with different hardware requirements) or PoS algo to hard fork to.

Well, if you don't find a new mining algo that requires investment in new hardware, a blockchain with a minority of mining power behind it is vulnerable to the major chain. So nobody will use it, unless they didn't know what they were doing.

So the miners do have quite a bit of say. Depends on what your strategy for hard-forking the PoW algo is. Or, you need to understand PoS.

It's in the blog post. Read it :P

The creators creating massive wealth for themselves does not imply that the thing was necessarily a ponzi scheme that destroyed wealth. For example, the price of Bitcoin may never go down. See Moldbug's definition of money, as being essentially a bubble.

Sometimes having skin in the game can help one learn. But one must never forget to learn, must develop a risk mitigation strategy that allows one to continue saving.

In PoW, ultimately the miners have the say. It's just that they're incentivized to do what the "economic majority" has to say, otherwise the economic majority can choose to hard-fork the mining algo (requiring a change in hardware investment), or, can switch to PoS, say.

http://tendermint.com/blog/on-thedao-and-blockchain-governan...

This is great, looking forward to a comparison between this and https://github.com/tendermint/go-p2p, maybe we'll manage to merge them or choose one or the other.

If you'd like to venture into Byzantine fault tolerant consensus, check out Tendermint.

draft thesis from Ethan Buchman: https://github.com/ebuchman/thesis/blob/master/Buchman_Ethan...

https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint

How does this relate to the spinning black/white thing?

There's a real Pirate Party moment happening in Iceland now. And judging by the tone here, the time seems right for a change.

https://twitter.com/Kopimism/status/721150098453897216

You're trusting Intel, essentially.

It would be interesting to see Intel open their SGX platform so as for it to be configurable, and use it to attest Tendermint nodes. Accountable BFT consensus benefit from hardware attestation.

Tendermint. It has different security characteristics, but the nice thing is, it doesn't rely on extrinsic factors for security. It's not just BFT, it's actually antifragile.

I can't speak for anything else out there, but Tendermint is about providing real accountable BFT middleware.

https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/wiki/Byzantine-Cons...

Calling this a journaled database is an understatement.

There are two ways to secure a ledger. Mining, and accountable BFT like Tendermint.

A consensus algorithm is one that ensures that multiple independent actors come to agreement about anything. In a blockchain, multiple independent miners or validators need to come to agreement about which blocks have been committed.

A fault-tolerant consensus algorithm is a consensus algorithm that can tolerate failure of any nodes (e.g. miners or validators). By failure, I'm referring to fail-stop failures, where a miner or validator crashes or goes offline. The key metric for fault-tolerant consensus algorithms is the threshold for how many failures the system can tolerate. For example, Raft is a fault-tolerant consensus algorithm can tolerate up to 49.99% of node failures.

A Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus algorithm is a fault-tolerant consensus algorithm that can tolerate not just fail-stop failures, but arbitrary failures. For example, one or more nodes that get hacked by a malicious hacker might be coordinated to subvert consensus from within. Bitcoin is exciting because it can tolerate such attacks from within (e.g. any miner) to a significant degree. Tendermint is similar, except it doesn't require significant energy expenditure for its security.

Proof-of-Stake was a family of early consensus algorithms from cryptocurrency projects that don't use PoW mining. A lot of them are terrible and suffered from the "nothing at stake" problem. For a while, the Tendermint project had been using collateral bonds to ensure that there is actually "something at stake". But Tendermit is more general than that. You can have stake with collateral posted on-or-off-chain, or, you don't need to use collateral at all. It all depends on what you're trying to build.

If you want a standalone cryptocurrency blockchain, you'll want in-chain collateral with bond deposits. But different blockchains have different requirements, so posting collateral to put something at stake may not be one of them.

Personally I think we should just avoid the term "proof of stake".

See ErisIndustries using Tendermint for ErisDB: https://github.com/eris-ltd/eris-db/blob/master/erisdb/serve...

Actually, we wrote the Ethereum virtual machine implementation that they're using. We're moving away from the EVM though, because the TMSP architecture allows for easier native-application development.

http://github.com/tendermint/tmsp

If you want proof on the security of the Tendermint consensus algorithm, it's in the Github wiki.

Eris Industries is built on Tendermint. Tendermint doesn't use PoW mining, but it can secure a distributed ledger.

https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/wiki/Byzantine-Cons...

There's a lot of great innovations in Bitcoin. One of the primary reasons why it's exciting, is that it's the first widely deployed BFT ledger. Tendermint uses a different BFT algorithm that doesn't use mining.

Raft and Paxos aren't BFT, btw. As of 2012 there still weren't good implementations of PBFT/BFT middleware. http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/~mema/publications/middleware-2012.pdf . Tendermint is that middleware.

Here's a post on why Tendermint ledgers should be called blockchains:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10847136

A lot of people say that blockchains aren't blockchains without PoW. It's not surprising that people are saying this... there's been a ton of phony consensus algorithms that purport to not use PoW mining. Tendermint is different.

Hello Ben, thanks for the great tool.

If Bolt supports MVCC using a page log, why does Redis destroy Bolt on random write volume?

Also, I'm seeing wildly different write performance measures. Siddontang on #237 back in 2014 for Ledis suggests 970 Sets per second. This HN article mentions 800 requests per second. Running "bolt bench --count 10000000 --batch-size 10000 --write-mode rnd" gets me 29203 ops per second. Can you shed some light on what random write performance I can expect?