31–40 of 59 posts
There is a recurring trend of interpreting democracy to mean "leaderless consensus-based decision-making", which really doesn't work and never has. That's why Occupy and pretty much every other similar bottom-up movement failed: leaders are necessary. People follow other people, not algorithms or groups. "Making democracy work" should be about training better leaders and getting them into the system.
There is a recurring trend of interpreting democracy to mean "leaderless consensus-based decision-making", which really doesn't work and never has. That's why Occupy and pretty much every other similar bottom-up movement failed: leaders are necessary. People follow other people, not algorithms or groups. "Making democracy work" should be about training better leaders and getting them into the system.
Democracy which is all about "leaders" is not democracy. Find another word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think EU federation is pretty good, but I feel very dumbfounded every time dumb decisions that do not benefit member states are made, too much empathy too early I guess.
I wouldn't say so. The first years of the largest war in Europe since WWII have shown that a leaderless EU is incapable of making important decisions crucial to its own survival, as a fallen Ukraine would have led to a divided EU where many countries would be governed by authoritarian fascist regimes, such as the one in Hungary led by Orban.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand Q1 - that's exactly the point: If you withdraw _from your account_ and customer B withdraws from _their_ account, then the two events are unrelated and can be executed in either order (and, in fact, replicas would still have the same state even if some executed AB and some BA). The replay is part of what the authors fixed in the original protocol. I believe but need to read their protocol in…
I forget the term, it might be Dependency Graph. Hypothetically lets say there's a synchronized quantum every 60 seconds. Order of operations might not matter if transactions within that window do not touch any account referenced by other transactions. However every withdrawal is also a deposit. If Z withdraws from Y, and Y withdraws from X, and X also withdraws from Z there's a related path. Order also matters if an…
Transfer(a, b, $50)
And
Transfer(b, c, $50)
Are conflicting operations. They don't commute because of the possibility that b could overdraft. So the programmer would need to list (a, b) as the dependencies of the first transaction and (b, c) as the second. Doing so would prevent concurrent submission of these transactions from being executed on the fast path.
* As others have pointed out, Paxos is leaderless. Electing a leader is a performance trick (reduce contention/retries), not a correctness trick - if you want to order your events. * EPaxos appears to relax ordering as long as the clients can declare their event-dependencies. Q1) If I withdraw from ATM 1 and someone else withdraws from ATM 2, we are independent consumers - so how do we possibly coordinate which withd…
I'm not sure I understand Q1 - that's exactly the point: If you withdraw _from your account_ and customer B withdraws from _their_ account, then the two events are unrelated and can be executed in either order (and, in fact, replicas would still have the same state even if some executed AB and some BA). The replay is part of what the authors fixed in the original protocol. I believe but need to read their protocol in…
[Edit, rereading] Shortened down, just this part is probably it:
> which will include _all_ operations prior to the replacement of the node due to the no-op.
Sounds like a graph merge, not actually a replay.
There is a recurring trend of interpreting democracy to mean "leaderless consensus-based decision-making", which really doesn't work and never has. That's why Occupy and pretty much every other similar bottom-up movement failed: leaders are necessary. People follow other people, not algorithms or groups. "Making democracy work" should be about training better leaders and getting them into the system.
AND fixing the (fundamentally broken) system by reducing the influence of money.
* As others have pointed out, Paxos is leaderless. Electing a leader is a performance trick (reduce contention/retries), not a correctness trick - if you want to order your events. * EPaxos appears to relax ordering as long as the clients can declare their event-dependencies. Q1) If I withdraw from ATM 1 and someone else withdraws from ATM 2, we are independent consumers - so how do we possibly coordinate which withd…
I'm not sure I understand Q1 - that's exactly the point: If you withdraw _from your account_ and customer B withdraws from _their_ account, then the two events are unrelated and can be executed in either order (and, in fact, replicas would still have the same state even if some executed AB and some BA). The replay is part of what the authors fixed in the original protocol. I believe but need to read their protocol in…
Same account.
> the actor isn't clear here when you say "I re-read events 1-100" -- which actor is "I"?
The fundamental purpose of Paxos is that different actors will come to a consensus. If different actors see different facts, no consensus was reached, and Paxos wasn't necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand Q1 - that's exactly the point: If you withdraw _from your account_ and customer B withdraws from _their_ account, then the two events are unrelated and can be executed in either order (and, in fact, replicas would still have the same state even if some executed AB and some BA). The replay is part of what the authors fixed in the original protocol. I believe but need to read their protocol in…
> I'm not sure I understand Q1 - that's exactly the point: If you withdraw _from your account_ and customer B withdraws from _their_ account Same account. > the actor isn't clear here when you say "I re-read events 1-100" -- which actor is "I"? The fundamental purpose of Paxos is that different actors will come to a consensus . If different actors see different facts, no consensus was reached, and Paxos wasn't necess…
There is a recurring trend of interpreting democracy to mean "leaderless consensus-based decision-making", which really doesn't work and never has. That's why Occupy and pretty much every other similar bottom-up movement failed: leaders are necessary. People follow other people, not algorithms or groups. "Making democracy work" should be about training better leaders and getting them into the system.
> "Making democracy work" should be about training better leaders and getting them into the system. AND fixing the (fundamentally broken) system by reducing the influence of money.
What you need is a way to reduce corruption, i.e. create a structure where diverting public funds to special interests or passing laws that limit competition can be vetoed by someone with the right structural incentives to actually prevent it.