Paper: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm85.pdf
00:28:05 Marc-Antoine Parent: raft has timers, so not asynchronous
00:30:50 Michael Mure: for CRDTs, isn't that that there is causality in messages, which bounds the time and avoid the full asynchronous problem?
00:31:39 Uchenna Nwanyanwu: Sorry about that, I didn't know that the mic was enabled
00:31:45 Brooklyn Zelenka (@expede): No prob!
00:35:00 Marc-Antoine Parent: I'd say it's a different form of consensus
00:35:17 Marc-Antoine Parent: consensus without awareness of consensus...
00:38:02 Brian: https://www.podc.org/influential/2001-influential-paper/
00:38:54 Eleanor: thank you for the link!
00:39:17 Jagan: What is the relation between TCP and consensus?
00:40:30 Kim: There are cases where both sides agree that delivery happened, at least.
00:41:08 Mauve: (sorry was there supposed to be a IPVM community call in here in 7 mins?)
00:41:29 Steve Moyer: seq is also useful in TCP if you happen to get a packet twice
00:41:35 Brooklyn Zelenka (@expede): @mauve tomorrow!
00:41:50 James Walker (@walkah): I think tomorrow is WNFS? IPVM in my calendar isn't until the 20th
00:42:20 Mauve: I think my calendar is messed up. Apologies for the intrusion. 😁
00:42:34 Sodium : \o
00:42:35 James Walker (@walkah): You're more than welcome to stick around :)
00:55:16 Marc-Antoine Parent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol#Clock_synchronization_algorithm
00:55:52 Marc-Antoine Parent: there is a feedback loop
00:59:54 Sodium : "What’s the Difference? Efficient Set Reconciliation without Prior Context" https://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pubs/EppGooUye-SIGCOMM-11.pdf
01:00:00 Eleanor: very interested in next months paper
01:04:49 Jon Forsyth: Does Byzantine have a formal definition in Distributed Systems?
01:04:55 Marc-Antoine Parent: If so also look at https://github.com/Libero0809/PBS.git
01:05:07 Marc-Antoine Parent: (@Eleanor)
01:05:28 Eleanor: thanks
01:05:50 Sodium : Lamport's "The Byzantine Generals Problem": https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/byz.pdf
01:06:15 Jon Forsyth: thx
01:06:18 Marc-Antoine Parent: (I think we should look at this one too personally!)
01:07:19 Marc-Antoine Parent: rho? do you mean sigma?
01:10:18 Nithin Thomas: the last section briefly discussed consensus when the number of dead processes are known. it sounds really similar to RAFT. I am curious about that in the sense if asynchronous communication can be used to setup something like RAFT?
01:11:34 Marc-Antoine Parent: Nithin: interesting question! But... would you not say that raft uses timers to add synchronicity to an asynchronous basis?
01:14:26 Nithin Thomas: yeah that makes sense, thank you
01:15:22 Daniel Holmgren: have another meeting coming up so gotta run. thanks yall!
01:15:25 Marc-Antoine Parent: Shannon's theory of communication
01:15:31 Brooklyn Zelenka (@expede): Thanks Daniel!
01:16:11 Steve Moyer: was thinking of Shannon while we were discussing NTP
01:17:36 Sodium : yes, the messages are addressed to individual processes
01:18:20 Sodium : "Processes communicate by sending each other messages. A message is a pair (p, m), where p is the name of the destination process and m is a “message value” from a fixed universe M. "