61–70 of 78 posts
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.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's the best part: they paid him to throw such savage shade on their blockchain. One transaction per second, one million transactions per second, what's the difference? It's just the roadmap, man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the best part: they paid him to throw such savage shade on their blockchain. One transaction per second, one million transactions per second, what's the difference? It's just the roadmap, man.
Yes, generally you pay third parties for their consulting services which is exactly what RDX Works did here. Are you familiar with the history of Jepsen tests? Because this report is a pretty standard analysis of his. I think if you read some of the other distributed systems analyses he has done this would be quite clear. Your take away that this was some sort of a "shade throwing" event is pretty bizarre.
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.
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
Making marketing material truer will lower the amount of people trapped into the vicious cycle of repeating false claims for the sake of propping up a risky investment, and is good for everyone involved long term.
But short-term, making outrageously optimistic statements will create a large amount of proponents which is what probably financed this report in the first place.
The difficulty is in ramping up truth without destroying too much the franchisees who are the ones who put up the actual money but valued their investment in light of a false/exaggerated statement.
It's funny how the comments here are polarized, some of them claiming that Jepsen slaughtered RDX, others that it proved that the consensus layer is rock solid. Let's appreciate this for what it is. Blockchains are, at their heart, a type of database (or at the very least a ledger which can be the foundation on which some subset of database semantics can be layered). Performance and reliability are empirical claims w…
I would love for a highly reputable team or individual to test blockchains and their claims. However, the testing should be done in a way that respects the fact that blockchains are a different type of database and should be judged as such. For example, because of the blockchain trilemma, increasing transaction speed isn't always a good thing since it could sacrifice decentralization.