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

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#21

Post by NelsonMinar »

Mleekko wrote: post #18
aphyr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Well, Radix says it is fixed now. That's the gist of their response to this report, "we fixed a lot of things and no one's tested the new code but trust us!"

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#22

Post by smw »

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.

Are you (new account) failing to disclose your conflict of interest here?

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#23

Post by Mleekko »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #21
Mleekko wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Well, Radix says it is fixed now. That's the gist of their response to this report, "we fixed a lot of things and no one's tested the new code but trust us!"

nope, if you read it one more time, for this particular issue Jepsen confirms the fix.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#24

Post by faraz85 »

smw wrote: post #22
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.

Are you (new account) failing to disclose your conflict of interest here?

Happy to share I'm an advocate of this project and follow its developments closely

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#25

Post by gmalette »

coolsunglasses wrote: post #12
boardwaalk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I live outside the United States and have never seen mm mean anything other than millimeter

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#26

Post by cormacrelf »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #7
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,…

The future is now. (sorry for relatively low effort comment.)

I wonder if Finnish startups benefit from a language that does not have a future tense. (This is not a Finnish startup.)

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#27

Post by AtlasBarfed »

OH YEAH JEPSEN IS TEARING APART CRYPTO!!!!

Aphyr is the best. No matter your fave distributed tech and all it's CAP-don't-matter stuff, he shows that... CAP does very much matter and it's really hard.

Cassandra? Kafka? MongoDB (bwahahahah)? It's all got edge cases.

He should be getting paid a million bucks a year by various auditing/accounting firms and the FTC/SEC for validating crypto claims. It would be a massive public service.

I like that its being treated like a database, and that the safety/correctness of any blockchain has to be viewed from a distributed database standpoint.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#28

Post by bogomipz »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #27

OH YEAH JEPSEN IS TEARING APART CRYPTO!!!! Aphyr is the best. No matter your fave distributed tech and all it's CAP-don't-matter stuff, he shows that... CAP does very much matter and it's really hard. Cassandra? Kafka? MongoDB (bwahahahah)? It's all got edge cases. He should be getting paid a million bucks a year by various auditing/accounting firms and the FTC/SEC for validating crypto claims. It would be a massive…

Jepsen is most certainly not "tearing apart crypto" nor is that even remotely the intention of this post.

From the very first paragraph:

>"This work was funded by Radix Tokens (Jersey) Limited, and conducted in collaboration with RDX Works Ltd ..."

The post also links to RDX Works Ltd's blog post on this collaboration. Also in the first paragraph.

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#29

Post by Smaug123 »

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 consensus layer of the architecture is rock solid according to this report.

That's quite a stretch. The report states explicitly a) the usual proviso that they can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence, but more pertinently b) that their methodology is more usually applied to lower-latency databases, with the implication that they are less confident of their conclusions in this new regime:

> Radix’s low throughput and high latency may have masked safety violations. In particular, our tests required several hours to reproduce e.g. aborted read (#13).

Note also that they didn't even attempt to test what happens in the presence of malicious nodes!

Re: Jepsen: Radix DLT 1.0-Beta.35.1

#30

Post by Smaug123 »

gmalette wrote: post #25
coolsunglasses wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I live outside the United States and have never seen mm mean anything other than millimeter

Meanwhile I live in the UK and it's completely standard for monetary quantities.
Post reply on HN