consensus

Once you reach an agreement, everyone will agree to something. If you want to watch a movie with a friend, you need to agree with the movie that everyone wants to see.

Do you realize that I am opposed to almost everything, from who is the best baseball player to a high tax rate? As long as there is a difference, there is no consensus. Consensus means that everyone is on the same page. When you are talking about all the people in the world, it is difficult to reach an agreement on something. There are too many opinions. However, in a small group of people, it is possible to reach an agreement.

This is not a consensus. The consensus is terrible. Since few people agree naturally and quickly with certain things truly, the consensus is an attempt to please everyone, which often makes everyone equally unhappy. The most reasonable people are only heard and only need to know that their opinions have been understood, considered and answered. Although managers may not have so many problems to be directly responsible for reporting, "We should be equal, why can I focus on their business?" It is more difficult for my colleagues. When purchasing and committing it seems pointless, people simply say "I do not agree"

As many people know here, my interest in the agreement mechanism is far from sufficient. In a survey report by KPMG, I co-authored "Agreement: Eternity Agreement on the Value Internet" and discussed many agreement mechanisms. In Appendix 3 of this document, many major companies in this field are discussing their agreement approach. One consensus mechanism not mentioned in this document is the consensus algorithm of Swarlds Hashgraph. This white paper is an excellent reading material, and this agreement mechanism has many promises. I had a lot of discussions with the founder Leemon Baird who came from conversations, questions and emails on this topic. Also, at the end of the blog, I asked lemon to fill out a consensus questionnaire from KPMG's report, but he did it generously. His answer is at the end of this article.

I think this is perfect for other conversations. We talked a lot about the proof of work and the content of the agreement. Prior to this conversation, we discussed other agreement mechanisms - some traditional consensus mechanisms, the pre-Bitcoin era, and the new agreement mechanism people are thinking and thinking. Do you mind further consensus of Nakamoto, then some further previous consensus mechanisms, and further understanding of where they are today? As an example, Google operates several data centers. They host all data, search index, and all other content. They run a lot of hardware, sometimes hardware fails. It will fall and die. Google knows this. It happens every day in the data center. According to statistics, some computers break down everyday. Therefore, what Google wants is that a single node (or computer) in a distributed system crashes - there is an error - there is no obstacle.