
Achieving consensus with 99% dishonest actors - max_
https://www.radixdlt.com/post/simple-consensus-in-radix
======
DoctorOetker
That's a very strong claim, and I hope it is true (if there is anything I have
learned from cryptography, it is that sometimes things that seem impossible
are proven to be possible).

But I would like to see a much more formal mathematical paper describing the
proof, at least similar in detail and rigor as say the Algorand paper. This is
such a short article, in plain english, that it's pretty hard to believe the
claim of achieving consensus with 99% dishonest actors..

Edit: I just noticed that the final sentence _does_ reference a white paper,
which I will now read and comment upon after finishing.

~~~
DoctorOetker
OK, I read the paper, I was hoping for a repeating sequence of Theorem, Proof
Motivation/Explanation, repeat... English word salad motivating the strategy
or approach, but proofs for each claim.

Perhaps they have proofs, but they're not in the paper.

Now it's just impact factor jello :(

Moreover, it seemms that the initiator of a transaction chooses its own
inspector, who then chooses the next. What prevents the united 99% conspiring
malicious from selecting each other as inspectors, and underwriting each
other?

------
wmf
They've shifted the hard work to a separate system that isn't described in the
article. I'll go ahead and predict that their "Mass" system is either proof of
work or proof of stake.

------
opwieurposiu
Congress has been doing this for 200+ years!

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

