Happy to announce that our paper "Lay Down the Common Metrics: Evaluating Proof-of-Work Consensus Protocols' Security" is accepted at @IEEESSP (Oakland)! Thx @hashdag @socrates1024 @pwuille @adam3us for the discussion! Paper: https://www.esat.kuleuven.be/cosic/publications/article-3005.pdf … talk:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIQcdnKZBQ&feature=youtu.be …
-
-
Traditional Byzantine consensus assumes that nodes are uniquely identifiable & thus countable. This is fine if the goal is reliability, not security & nodes are part of a fixed architecture, as with chips on an airplane.
-
The unique-and-countable node assumption seriously breaks when the goal is security among nodes on a public network, which is why Nakamoto consensus was such a huge advance in computer science.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ah, my apologies. I'm trying to find the origin of the term, not impugn your reputation by lumping you in with the crazy people. :-) So far it appears you are the earliest origin of it I can find in e.g. September 2014 tweets:https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/statuses/510207346807959552 …
-
And here's one from 2014/07/23: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/492046975093592064 … I'm always happy to be corrected.
-
Earliest references I found so far: 2014/04/18: Private comment I made to gmax. (sigh) 2013/12/01: gmax stating it in
#bitcoin on Freenode 2013/08/24: earliest public mention I found of the below URL 2010/2011: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/decentralized-time.txt … "Nakamoto chain consensus" -
Even earlier public reference: 2012/02/01: gmax linking to decentralized-time.txt in bitcoin-dev on Freenode 2011/10/30: gmax in
#bitcoin: "hm. someone needs to create a nakamoto chain consensus distributed forum." All roads lead to gmax. :-P Alright, I'm done searching. \o
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.