Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

jepsen.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#11

Post by faraz85 »

twsted wrote: post #6

This is really hilarious: > When asked, RDX Works executives informed Jepsen that blockchain/DLT readers would normally understand present-tense English statements like these to be referring to potential future behavior, rather than the present. > Jepsen is no stranger to ambitious claims, and aims to understand, analyze, and report on systems as they presently behave—in the context of their documentation, marketing,…

I like to think most people are able to read marketing material in the context of the roadmap to understand the difference in performance claimed vs. measured - apples and oranges comes to mind

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#12

Post by coolsunglasses »

boardwaalk wrote: post #10
faraz85 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly out of context, the 1.4mm tps test was during an earlier iteration of the sharded architecture (coming in 2023) whereas Jepsen were testing the unsharded mainnet.

It may imply they’d need 1.4 million (mm is millimeters…) shards to meet that test number, and scale linearly while doing it, though.

mm is mille mille, meaning a thousand thousand. 1,000 * 1,000 is 1 million. 1mm to mean 1 million is common outside of the United States.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#13

Post by ceroxylon »

Classic blockchain startup in the 2020s: put a cool name on your version of sharding, act as if it were already live and being used by governments / corporations, and hope enough people put rockets in the discord to keep the VC money coming in.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#14

Post by daenney »

Mleekko wrote: post #8
daenney wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To Jepsen’s surprise, RDX Works asserted that phenomena such as aborted read, intermediate read, and lost writes do not constitute safety violations (in the blockchain sense). RDX Works claims that to describe these errors as safety violations would not be understood by readers from a blockchain background; this report is therefore “factually incorrect”. On these grounds, RDX Works requested that Jepsen delete any…

What Radix say is true though. In private DBs, reads from the DB node are considered transactions and need to follow the same rules as writes. But on public blockchains(ledgers) only state manipulation is what matters. For example, Metamask obtaining an address balance would be a transaction, but no one calls it that way because it doesn't modify the state.

Sure. But they could have asked for the additional clarifications or context to be added to make this clear, instead of requesting a bunch of stuff be removed because they’re concerned it’ll paint them in a bad light.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#15

Post by faraz85 »

daenney wrote: post #14
Mleekko wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Radix say is true though. In private DBs, reads from the DB node are considered transactions and need to follow the same rules as writes. But on public blockchains(ledgers) only state manipulation is what matters. For example, Metamask obtaining an address balance would be a transaction, but no one calls it that way because it doesn't modify the state.

Sure. But they could have asked for the additional clarifications or context to be added to make this clear, instead of requesting a bunch of stuff be removed because they’re concerned it’ll paint them in a bad light.

As I understand from the report, no request was made to remove the content but to leave terms like "liveness break" and "safety break" out of the abstract until those terms were defined in the main report.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#16

Post by aphyr »

faraz85 wrote: post #9
daenney wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To Jepsen’s surprise, RDX Works asserted that phenomena such as aborted read, intermediate read, and lost writes do not constitute safety violations (in the blockchain sense). RDX Works claims that to describe these errors as safety violations would not be understood by readers from a blockchain background; this report is therefore “factually incorrect”. On these grounds, RDX Works requested that Jepsen delete any…

Pleased they ignored that request too, although I can see where RDX are coming from. In a distributed ledger it's all about state. The consensus layer of the architecture is rock solid according to this report.

The core ledger system lost committed transactions by choosing not to write them to disk before acknowledgement.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#17

Post by camgunz »

faraz85 wrote: post #11
twsted wrote: post #6

This is really hilarious: > When asked, RDX Works executives informed Jepsen that blockchain/DLT readers would normally understand present-tense English statements like these to be referring to potential future behavior, rather than the present. > Jepsen is no stranger to ambitious claims, and aims to understand, analyze, and report on systems as they presently behave—in the context of their documentation, marketing,…

I like to think most people are able to read marketing material in the context of the roadmap to understand the difference in performance claimed vs. measured - apples and oranges comes to mind

Hey did you uh, make an account for this thread?

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#18

Post by Mleekko »

aphyr wrote: post #16
faraz85 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pleased they ignored that request too, although I can see where RDX are coming from. In a distributed ledger it's all about state. The consensus layer of the architecture is rock solid according to this report.

The core ledger system lost committed transactions by choosing not to write them to disk before acknowledgement.

Yeah, the issue is serious but at the same time: "This problem occurred only in cases where every node was killed at roughly the same time". And there are 100 nodes on the network. (and it is fixed now)

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#19

Post by aphyr »

faraz85 wrote: post #15
daenney wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But they could have asked for the additional clarifications or context to be added to make this clear, instead of requesting a bunch of stuff be removed because they’re concerned it’ll paint them in a bad light.

As I understand from the report, no request was made to remove the content but to leave terms like "liveness break" and "safety break" out of the abstract until those terms were defined in the main report.

You understand incorrectly.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#20

Post by lostdog »

faraz85 wrote: post #11
twsted wrote: post #6

This is really hilarious: > When asked, RDX Works executives informed Jepsen that blockchain/DLT readers would normally understand present-tense English statements like these to be referring to potential future behavior, rather than the present. > Jepsen is no stranger to ambitious claims, and aims to understand, analyze, and report on systems as they presently behave—in the context of their documentation, marketing,…

I like to think most people are able to read marketing material in the context of the roadmap to understand the difference in performance claimed vs. measured - apples and oranges comes to mind

Do you have any affiliation with the Radix project that you'd like to disclose?
Post reply on HN