|
Call for volunteers: Hyperledger Global Forum Program Committee
Dear all,
As you hopefully know, we're holding the
next Hyperledger Global Forum
in Phoenix, Arizona March 3rd-6th, 2020. The Call For Papers was
announced two weeks ago, and we already have a nice batch of
submissions. To really ensure that the program is built by and
represents the full community, we are forming
a Program Committee to oversee the content and the agenda
for the event. You can now nominate
yourself for the Program Committee. We expect the burden to
be approximately 1 to 2 hours a week from late September to early
December, by which point the agenda should be final. Being on the
Committee does not prevent you from submitting talk proposals of
your own. Nominations close September 11th. Feel free to forward
to other parts of the community. Let us know if you have any
questions, and thanks in advance!
Brian
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
> The most prominent item I see is Ethereum mainnet compatibility. Could
someone
articulate the value of that in specific terms? I am familiar with the
notion of using mainnet as a receipt log. I would like to understand
other benefits and use cases for permissioned networks to link with
mainnet.
This quite a big topic, but I will give some examples I like.
First its worth noting for all of these use cases what is interesting is not just being able to 'do it on mainnet' -- anyone can send transactions to Ethereum from bash -- but rather having mainnet connectivity. The strongest for of this would be that a quorum (ideally any quorum) of your validators are jointly responsible for issuing transactions (via some kind of multisig on mainnet) and checking state on return (via multisig on sidechain). Lesser forms of connectivity might be via 'trusted' third parties or even a single service (i.e. an ethereum oracle). The effect could be the same, but in the weaker forms you have thrown away much of you byzantine tolerance. Ideally you want the same threshold for state changes on the sidechain as for state changes to the relevant contracts on mainnet. If all you require is a proof that a transaction was included (i.e. account X has placed a bond) rather than joint custody of an asset (i.e. paying out from the sidechain's reserve contract - where (super-)majority of validators must agree) then you can get away without quorum at the expense of liveness. To do this kind of strong connectivity it is helpful for validators on both sides (mainnet and sidechain) to be aware of each other. This is where Pantheon could help Burrow for instance - by pushing state back to us rather than us pulling - where a Burrow chain's validators would hold accounts on mainnet, and a validator pool from mainnet would hold accounts on the burrow sidechain. This isn't something we could get go-ethereum to do, but we might persuade Pantheon to provide this intermediate layer.
1. Bond-holding and value transfer. This probably the most obvious one. Since eth is worth something you can pay people in it. In particular you may want to run micro-transactions on your chain that are secured against a bond placed on ethereum. In order to guarantee the bond you need to be able to observe that a reserve of funds are locked on mainnet, you also need to be able to atomically swap them which is where you need connectivity. For proof-of-stake chains on Burrow you can ask entities wishing to validate to store bond on mainnet, credit them with validator power on Burrow, and if necessary in the case of validator unavailability or equivocation to slash part of their bond on mainnet. We would like all of these actions to be under control of a quorum of validators on the Burrow chain. We can fudge it now, but proper connectivity is what we would like to do it well.
2. Announcement and light clients
I think your receipt log example would come under this bracket. The most interesting to me is announcing state hash, validator set hash, and seed location for a Burrow (or other) network. If I am a participant or validator wanting to join a Burrow network I would like to find out a recent snapshot of the validator set (their public keys) and also how I can connect to them. I could trust, say, Monax to tell me but I'd rather use Ethereum as a public system of announcement. If the validator set hash and state hash is updated in a timely fashion, as a light client I can use it to verify merkle proofs issued by a Burrow node without trusting that Burrow node so long as the history of the state root hash was updated by a quorum of validators periodically (and >1/3 of the set hasn't changed since the last update). This is great because I don't have to validator the entire Burrow network
3. Counter-factual instantiation
This language comes from 'state channels'. If we consider a sidechain as a kind of state channel with its own consensus where some counterparties can more quickly transact than they can on mainnet then they can go about their business issuing signed incremental transactions that would also be valid on mainnet. This works for micro-payments but can be generalised to any state where you have a rule that says the highest sequence number is valid. If the participants on the sidechain have a dispute they can all submit their latest transactions and an ethereum contract can adjudicate. At worst a participant on the sidechain only loses out on state since the last checkpoint they were okay with (e.g. before the sidechain suffered a sybil attack).
4. Inter-chain connectivity
Suppose I have two chains A and B, each chain has a total ordering of its own transactions. If I want to establish a partial ordering between just some transactions on A and B I can do that by instituting some form of meta-consensus on mainnet. This could just be a race if it is unimportant which transaction comes first or it could be some kind of conflict resolution. For example if my chain A is managing bills of lading for shipping and wants to issue an insurance agreement (b) on my agreements network B for a consignment (a). We can transact away on A building the bill of lading and follow a formation and signing process for the agreement on B before finally submitting an transaction on mainnet that defines the insurance agreement as executed _before_ the bill of lading is accepted. The transaction 'b then a' on mainnet is a kind of stronger guarantee that you were insured before you shipped (than say timestamps) - and it's also a public record of the fact. You then only pay the price of cross-chain consensus for transactions that need to depend on each other.
I don't share all of the fervour, and I'm not quite so bullish on Ethereum (though it does have that big advantage of being a thing right now...), but I think the following blog provides quite a nice frame for thinking about possible relationships between mainnet and permissioned networks:
Silas
First off thanks for all the work going into the proposal and the timely responses to this list and the wiki. While there is already collaboration with portions of the Ethereum and EEA communities, more involvement and collaboration is
always very welcome. I think this project could foster even more and I have a just a few questions remaining in my mind after reviewing all the comments in this thread and the wiki.
Adding another framework to Hyperledger presents both opportunities and risks. On the risks side, we are just now at a point where we were starting to see real progress on componentization and steps towards architectural convergence. A
siloed project could upset that progress. I appreciate the Besu proposers expressing a willingness to work with existing component projects (e.g. Transact & Ursa). Is Besu architected in a way to also provide components to the rest of Hyperledger? Are there
pieces that offer independent value?
On the opportunities side, with new frameworks we’ve always had a constantly rising bar… what does this new proposal bring that is unique to our greenhouse. The most prominent item I see is Ethereum mainnet compatibility. Could someone
articulate the value of that in specific terms? I am familiar with the notion of using mainnet as a receipt log. I would like to understand other benefits and use cases for permissioned networks to link with mainnet.
I look forward to discussing this proposal in our steering meeting tomorrow (8/22).
Thanks,
Dan Middleton
Chair, Technical Steering Committee
Joe - we can probably do it, and pretty quickly. We already have both Fabric and Ethereum nodes (full nodes) on the Unbounded Network for quite a while... and we are already bridging Fabric - Quorum (JPM's), etc...
I don't think being under the same foundation will guarantee that people actively "make it work". One can argue that some of the biggest Fabric supporters also part of EEA/TTI and still haven't made this a priority. I wonder who will spend
the money and time..
Also, for those more familiar with the Ethereum Ecosystem - there are so many tools that are not part of Hyperledger, from Truffle to Infura and I don't want to even mention block explorers and others. Do we want a commitment that all these
tools will be part of Hyperledger, or that code will move from these projects (some are with GPL and others) into the respective HL candidates? There are actually announcements left, right and center about truffle adding Fabric support, etc. These developments
are not done in Hyperledger.
-----
What I don't understand is, since when we have ever required anything like some of the things I see below from a project at incubation? Shall we make these a future requirement?
I will put together a wider response tomorrow, actually with a few questions that I belive we should answer within Hyperledger first, before we make so many changes "after a proposal is submitted". We saw it with Grid, which required an
escalation to the board, and we are beginning to see some similar traits.
In the meantime, enjoy the Web3 Summit, Berlin BC Week, where applies.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:20, Joseph Lubin
We have also engaged in discussions for a year of so with some Fabric focussed groups around finding a project that would benefit from a Fabric-Ethereum bridge. To this point we haven't found a partner that was interested in doing this
with us, but I expect this will happen quite quickly if we are all part of the same foundation.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:08 PM, Grace Hartley <grace.hartley@...> wrote:
Here are our team's thoughts, but we'd love to hear the community's feedback as well.
In the short term we see the majority of interop and cross ledger communication happening at layer 2. We are actively working with teams
in the wider community to ensure that Besu facilitates layer 2 cross ledger communication, particularly working with the web3j team who are adding support for Hyperledger Fabric, and the Truffle team who are doing the same.
In the medium-term we are very interested in interoperability between chains, and we will be investing increasing effort in this direction,
and in doing so expect to leverage many of the existing Hyperledger projects to do so. The two most obvious projects for collaboration currently are Burrow due to it’s EVM execution environment and aim of providing
a
practical base for EVM extensions in a many-chain world. In addition we look towards working with Quilt for its implementation of the interledger
protocol. Quilt is a natural collaboration opportunity due to both the technologies it supports, and the fact that it is a JVM based technology.
Thank you Grace, for the kind response
How do you foresee Besu converge with Hyperledger technologies. For example, do you see Besu converging or inter-operating with Fabric or Sawtooth anytime. I do see blockchain networks going Hybrid as they evolve. There are several other
yperledger projects like URSA and Transact. Quite interested in knowing Besu leveraging these.
Hi All,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. We've responded to them below.
Virgil’s Question:
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
PegaSys' Response:
As Dan mentioned, we had a trademark challenge with Pantheon and we have to switch our name regardless of the Proposal. We chose Hyperledger Besu because “besu”
means base in Japanese. We felt like base indicated how we developed the Ethereum client. We believe it is a solid foundation for blockchain developers to work on to run networks, build applications or send transactions, as an example.
Hyperledger’s naming principles target names that are not “common” words and that are easy to trademark. Unicorn, rainbow and all other words we explored that
have more direct connections to Ethereum will have trademark challenges.
Mohan’s Question:
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned
ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
PegaSys' Response:
The intent for Besu to be submitted in its current form. It can be run on the Ethereum public network or on private permissioned networks, as well as test networks
such as Rinkeby, Ropsten, and Görli. We think public chain compatibility aligns with the enterprise market’s growing interest in using mainnet for a broader and more diverse set of use cases. Because this project is a protocol, it can be used for many different
applications. Enabling cryotocurrency is only one of the applications. This project would be the first public chain compatible client within Hyperledger.
Silas provides a great response on his thoughts about how the project relates to Burrow and some ideas around collaboration here. Burrow is most well known for
its EVM, which could connect in with Besu. They have a number of other components that we have started discussing with Silas. We are excited about closely working with the Hyperledger community to find areas for interoperability across the other projects.
We have ideas mentioned in the Proposal around who we can collaborate with.
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate
Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
There were some trademark issues around "Pantheon", unfortunately
Why rename it?
Hi All, We are excited to share that
PegaSys, the Protocol Engineering team at
ConsenSys, submitted the
Proposal for our Ethereum client, Hyperledger Besu (currently known as Pantheon), for your consideration as a new Hyperledger project.
We welcome your feedback on the Proposal and look forward to engaging with you on it. Feel free to send our team feedback via email or comment
directly in the Proposal document.
Thank you,
PegaSys and ConsenSys Team Joseph Lubin, ConsenSys,
joseph. lubin@ consensys. netDaniel Heyman, ConsenSys/ PegSys,
daniel. heyman@ consensys. netRob Dawson, ConsenSys/ PegaSys,
rob. dawson@ consensys. netGrace Hartley, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
grace. hartley@ consensys. netDanno Ferrin, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
danno. ferrin@ consensys. net
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http:/
/ www. digitalasset. com/ emaildisclaimer. html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
this message.
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Thanks for the note, Jonathan.
> Joe - we can probably do it, and pretty quickly. We already have both Fabric and Ethereum nodes (full nodes) on the Unbounded Network for quite a while... and we are already bridging Fabric - Quorum (JPM's), etc...
Great. We should discuss this.
> One can argue that some of the biggest Fabric supporters also part of EEA/TTI and still haven't made this a priority. I wonder who will spend the money and time..
True, but the focus over there is Ethereum so it didn't come up as a priority in that context, and there is likely more focus here on interoperation.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:19 PM, Jonathan Levi <jonathan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Hi Dan,
Below are our team’s thoughts on your questions. We are looking forward to the discussion tomorrow.
Question 1:
Adding another framework to Hyperledger presents both opportunities and risks. On the risks side, we are just now at a point where we were starting to see real progress on componentization and steps towards architectural convergence. A siloed project could upset that progress. I appreciate the Besu proposers expressing a willingness to work with existing component projects (e.g. Transact & Ursa). Is Besu architected in a way to also provide components to the rest of Hyperledger? Are there pieces that offer independent value?
PegaSys’ Thoughts: Besu has been built with a modular architecture in mind. Elements of it could be reused by other parts of Hyperledger. The leading elements for this would be: Other elements may also be useful. As these modules have not yet been run independently, there would likely be work required to ensure that they run well outside of Besu, but this is certainly possible.
Question 2:
On the opportunities side, with new frameworks we’ve always had a constantly rising bar… what does this new proposal bring that is unique to our greenhouse. The most prominent item I see is Ethereum mainnet compatibility. Could someone articulate the value of that in specific terms? I am familiar with the notion of using mainnet as a receipt log. I would like to understand other benefits and use cases for permissioned networks to link with mainnet.
PegaSys’ Thoughts: This article published last week by ConsenSys does a good job articulating the value of Ethereum mainnet as well as the benefits for linking permissioned networks with Ethereum mainnet. In our opinion, this section from the article provides a good overview:
“Many enterprise blockchain experts anticipate that permissioned blockchain networks’ access to the mainnet will be analogous to an intranet’s access to the Internet today, in which users behind security firewalls still have access to all or select parts of the Internet. In the case of blockchain, enterprise networks would have access to the Ethereum mainnet via a bridge, with the ability to pick and choose which networks, nodes, and accounts to interact with on the main chain. Permissioned network interoperability with the Ethereum mainnet would allow data storage across the blockchain and private cloud with customizable privacy and scalability. Connecting to the mainnet also allows compatibility with and access to:
Thank you, Grace
First off thanks for all the work going into the proposal and the timely responses to this list and the wiki. While there is already collaboration with portions of the Ethereum and EEA communities, more involvement and collaboration is
always very welcome. I think this project could foster even more and I have a just a few questions remaining in my mind after reviewing all the comments in this thread and the wiki.
Adding another framework to Hyperledger presents both opportunities and risks. On the risks side, we are just now at a point where we were starting to see real progress on componentization and steps towards architectural convergence. A
siloed project could upset that progress. I appreciate the Besu proposers expressing a willingness to work with existing component projects (e.g. Transact & Ursa). Is Besu architected in a way to also provide components to the rest of Hyperledger? Are there
pieces that offer independent value?
On the opportunities side, with new frameworks we’ve always had a constantly rising bar… what does this new proposal bring that is unique to our greenhouse. The most prominent item I see is Ethereum mainnet compatibility. Could someone
articulate the value of that in specific terms? I am familiar with the notion of using mainnet as a receipt log. I would like to understand other benefits and use cases for permissioned networks to link with mainnet.
I look forward to discussing this proposal in our steering meeting tomorrow (8/22).
Thanks,
Dan Middleton
Chair, Technical Steering Committee
Joe - we can probably do it, and pretty quickly. We already have both Fabric and Ethereum nodes (full nodes) on the Unbounded Network for quite a while... and we are already bridging Fabric - Quorum (JPM's), etc...
I don't think being under the same foundation will guarantee that people actively "make it work". One can argue that some of the biggest Fabric supporters also part of EEA/TTI and still haven't made this a priority. I wonder who will spend
the money and time..
Also, for those more familiar with the Ethereum Ecosystem - there are so many tools that are not part of Hyperledger, from Truffle to Infura and I don't want to even mention block explorers and others. Do we want a commitment that all these
tools will be part of Hyperledger, or that code will move from these projects (some are with GPL and others) into the respective HL candidates? There are actually announcements left, right and center about truffle adding Fabric support, etc. These developments
are not done in Hyperledger.
-----
What I don't understand is, since when we have ever required anything like some of the things I see below from a project at incubation? Shall we make these a future requirement?
I will put together a wider response tomorrow, actually with a few questions that I belive we should answer within Hyperledger first, before we make so many changes "after a proposal is submitted". We saw it with Grid, which required an
escalation to the board, and we are beginning to see some similar traits.
In the meantime, enjoy the Web3 Summit, Berlin BC Week, where applies.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:20, Joseph Lubin
We have also engaged in discussions for a year of so with some Fabric focussed groups around finding a project that would benefit from a Fabric-Ethereum bridge. To this point we haven't found a partner that was interested in doing this
with us, but I expect this will happen quite quickly if we are all part of the same foundation.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:08 PM, Grace Hartley <grace.hartley@...> wrote:
Here are our team's thoughts, but we'd love to hear the community's feedback as well.
In the short term we see the majority of interop and cross ledger communication happening at layer 2. We are actively working with teams
in the wider community to ensure that Besu facilitates layer 2 cross ledger communication, particularly working with the web3j team who are adding support for Hyperledger Fabric, and the Truffle team who are doing the same.
In the medium-term we are very interested in interoperability between chains, and we will be investing increasing effort in this direction,
and in doing so expect to leverage many of the existing Hyperledger projects to do so. The two most obvious projects for collaboration currently are Burrow due to it’s EVM execution environment and aim of providing
a
practical base for EVM extensions in a many-chain world. In addition we look towards working with Quilt for its implementation of the interledger
protocol. Quilt is a natural collaboration opportunity due to both the technologies it supports, and the fact that it is a JVM based technology.
Thank you Grace, for the kind response
How do you foresee Besu converge with Hyperledger technologies. For example, do you see Besu converging or inter-operating with Fabric or Sawtooth anytime. I do see blockchain networks going Hybrid as they evolve. There are several other
yperledger projects like URSA and Transact. Quite interested in knowing Besu leveraging these.
Hi All,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. We've responded to them below.
Virgil’s Question:
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
PegaSys' Response:
As Dan mentioned, we had a trademark challenge with Pantheon and we have to switch our name regardless of the Proposal. We chose Hyperledger Besu because “besu”
means base in Japanese. We felt like base indicated how we developed the Ethereum client. We believe it is a solid foundation for blockchain developers to work on to run networks, build applications or send transactions, as an example.
Hyperledger’s naming principles target names that are not “common” words and that are easy to trademark. Unicorn, rainbow and all other words we explored that
have more direct connections to Ethereum will have trademark challenges.
Mohan’s Question:
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned
ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
PegaSys' Response:
The intent for Besu to be submitted in its current form. It can be run on the Ethereum public network or on private permissioned networks, as well as test networks
such as Rinkeby, Ropsten, and Görli. We think public chain compatibility aligns with the enterprise market’s growing interest in using mainnet for a broader and more diverse set of use cases. Because this project is a protocol, it can be used for many different
applications. Enabling cryotocurrency is only one of the applications. This project would be the first public chain compatible client within Hyperledger.
Silas provides a great response on his thoughts about how the project relates to Burrow and some ideas around collaboration here. Burrow is most well known for
its EVM, which could connect in with Besu. They have a number of other components that we have started discussing with Silas. We are excited about closely working with the Hyperledger community to find areas for interoperability across the other projects.
We have ideas mentioned in the Proposal around who we can collaborate with.
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate
Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
There were some trademark issues around "Pantheon", unfortunately
Why rename it?
Hi All, We are excited to share that
PegaSys, the Protocol Engineering team at
ConsenSys, submitted the
Proposal for our Ethereum client, Hyperledger Besu (currently known as Pantheon), for your consideration as a new Hyperledger project.
We welcome your feedback on the Proposal and look forward to engaging with you on it. Feel free to send our team feedback via email or comment
directly in the Proposal document.
Thank you,
PegaSys and ConsenSys Team Joseph Lubin, ConsenSys,
joseph. lubin@ consensys. netDaniel Heyman, ConsenSys/ PegSys,
daniel. heyman@ consensys. netRob Dawson, ConsenSys/ PegaSys,
rob. dawson@ consensys. netGrace Hartley, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
grace. hartley@ consensys. netDanno Ferrin, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
danno. ferrin@ consensys. net
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http:/
/ www. digitalasset. com/ emaildisclaimer. html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
this message.
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
hmontgomery@us.fujitsu.com <hmontgomery@...>
Hi Mark,
As someone who regularly participates in the architecture WG, I don’t think it has the proper set of people right now to drive something like this. What we would
really need for this hypothetical project would be buy-in and participation from maintainers of the consensus algorithms of multiple current projects. Otherwise, we risk spending a lot of time creating some hypothetical interface that no one uses.
Thanks,
Hart
From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...]
On Behalf Of Mark Wagner
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:10 PM
To: Montgomery, Hart <hmontgomery@...>
Cc: Baohua Yang <yangbaohua@...>; Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>; Silas Davis <silas@...>; Stefan Buhrmester <buhrmi@...>; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
is this an area where the architecture WG can be leveraged and they can drive?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 18:07
hmontgomery@... < hmontgomery@...> wrote:
+1 to this idea. Thanks for bringing it up Shawn.
I think it would be a great idea to have such a library, as long as we can reasonably infer that people
will be able to agree on a consensus interface.
So do we have:
1.
General consensus that we can bridge consensus interfaces across projects.
2.
People across multiple projects willing to lead this effort.
If we have those two things, I think this makes perfect sense.
As a first step towards looking into the feasibility of such a project, how about we have a group/meeting
at the upcoming contributors’ summit focused on consensus interfaces? This seems like a productive use of our time in Milwaukee.
Thanks,
Hart
From:
tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...]
On Behalf Of Baohua Yang
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:28 AM
To: Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: Silas Davis <silas@...>; Stefan Buhrmester <buhrmi@...>; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
It would be a good idea if we can have some consensus library that is sharable among different blockchains, that's more valuable than a single implementation.
We have Ursa which covers the crypto techniques already.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:12 AM Shawn Amundson <amundson@...> wrote:
I'm a big fan of the idea of top-level consensus projects. We've
As a community, we've already had many conversations about consolidating what we already have across the existing projects. The effort to maintain consensus engines is exceptionally
high, which makes them good candidates for sharing across the DLT projects. The previous conversations have focused on what we would need to do in order to have a universal consensus API across projects.
Fundamentally what we need out of that universal consensus API:
1. A library which can work with both Rust and Go
2. DLT agnostic, so all the DLTs can adopt it. This means it does not define any network protocols, should not define it's own system processes, etc.
2a. It should not define a networking layer (it should rely on the DLT to provide it)
We've started down this path within our Sawtooth work. The initial iteration can be seen in Sawtooth's existing consensus engine design, and we are working on a library-based iteration
of the approach to make it more easily consumable outside of Sawtooth.
I'd like to see a commitment in this project to support all Hyperledger DLTs. That support can come in the form of being agnostic (doing the Fabric/Burrow integration in Fabric/Burrow
and keeping Babble agnostic so it can be adopted by other projects), which is the approach taken by Ursa and Transact.
Eventually, maybe we end up with a lot of top-level consensus projects:
- Consensus API - defines the APIs which consensus engines implement and the DLT-facing Rust and Go APIs for using them
- PBFT - derived from Sawtooth's PBFT implementation
- PoET - derived from Sawtooth's PoET implementation
- Raft - derived from Fabric or Sawtooth's Raft implementations
- other projects implementing the Consensus API
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an
implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library. It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester <buhrmi@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...>
wrote:
Thanks for the information Brian,
Before we go on to take care of the patent issues and changing the name we need to establish if it actually makes sense to incorporate our code base with Hyperledger.
On our side, we will need to show that the algorithm performs well compared to other comparable systems and that it has other qualitative advantages.
It also seems that there is no consensus among the TSC as to whether this type of project is a fit architecturally for Hyperledger.
So it would be good to keep the discussion going and to put the proposal on hold until these points are addressed.
I want to follow up and state that Leemon Baird (Hashgraph author) had reached out to me, and I asked him to confirm that this interpretation matches his understanding. It sounds
like they have multiple patents awarded and others filed and awaiting award relating to hashgraph, and we'd need either a clear grant to those patents as applied to Hyperledger code (essentially a DCO) from them or a statement that indeed their patents do
not read upon Babble for the reasons you gave, before giving the OK here for babble to be contributed. Otherwise you're asking a lot of people to take on a difficult-to-quantify risk, and patent issues are much more challenging to fix later than say copyright
or trademark issues.
Regarding the name - it has to be a name that isn't trademarked or otherwise owned/managed by another company, as that could lead to confusion. Sometimes it's best to come up with a new name as it enters, such as happened with Fabric, Sawtooth, Indy, and Burrow.
I take it
babble.io would still be a company & trademark you'd want to keep.
Brian
On 06/28/2017 11:14 AM, Martin Arrivets wrote:
Hello Brian,
Here is a link to a document describing the IP landscape around the issue:
We suggest the name Babble.
-----Original message-----
From: Brian Behlendorf via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Wednesday, June 28 2017, 5:30 pm
To:
hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
I can ask our counsel once we know more about what's being proposed, and how that relates to the patent landscape. Can someone involved in the proposal provide a write-up (which should be part of the repository, eventually) that details
the known IP in this field, and how it relates to the project? Just forwarding this thread probably isn't enough to go on.
Also, can we call this something more creative than just "Consensus Platform"?
Brian
On 06/28/2017 09:22 AM, Middleton, Dan via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
I don’t view journal publication as a gate on adding a project. It can be a factor in assessing technical merit but not the only factor. I’ll be looking whether there is sufficient
detail/formality in the proposal and its references to assess that technical merit - regardless of academic status.
Part of the notion of pluggable consensus is to enable users to make informed tradeoffs in security and performance guarantees for different deployment environments.
The TSC also has a governance role on licensing. From this thread, specific patent concerns have been raised. I request that Hyperledger’s legal counsel provide some guidance to the
TSC on that risk.
Regards,
Dan
I am a bit more leery of viewing academic peer-review as a gating function for new projects joining Hyperledger. It is completely appropriate IMHO for the Fabric maintainer community to state that they will only include consensus
plug-ins in the Fabric install that meet some criteria for quality, and peer-reviewed consensus mechanisms may be that. But not all possible consensus plug-ins need to be included within the Fabric project. We could accept a new Hyperledger project to build
a new/different consensus plug-in, with a different set of maintainers, who set their own standards for the proven-ness of the algorithm. That might be the right thing for a Hashgraph plugin, especially if there are some edge-case patent concerns.
Brian
On 06/27/2017 11:03 AM, Hart Montgomery via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
Hi Martin,
Is there a reason this hasn’t been submitted to a conference for peer review? I’d highly recommend doing so—you’ll have a lot more credibility with regards to people believing the
protocol if you can get it published in some conference proceedings. If you need help, I bet there are people on this list who would be happy to point you in the right direction.
As it is, I’d be wary of accepting any new crypto or consensus into Hyperledger that hasn’t been published in a reputable conference or heavily reviewed and documented by outsiders.
It sets the precedent that the TSC or other members of the community would have to be academic-style crypto reviewers in order to properly assess new contributions. While some of us may be, it puts an impossible burden on those that are not, and the appropriate
place for new research to be evaluated (which new crypto or consensus is) is an academic conference anyways. Additionally, to be truly safe, lots of time and review is needed for protocols that will be critical to systems. For instance, the SHA-3 competition
and review process took five years. While we don’t need that much time for new consensus algorithms, I think this is still an area where it is much better to be safe than sorry.
Thanks for your time, and have a great day.
Hart
Indeed the problem cannot be solved with a
deterministic protocol
But there are ways to circumvent the FLP theorem by sacrificing determinism
cf Rabin, M.O. (1983) ‘Randomized Byzantine generals’ for
example.
It is possible for a nondeterministic system to achieve consensus with probability
That is what the Hashgraph does and that is what I meant when I wrote that participants
will "eventually" (with probability one) know the exact location of a transaction in history.
The Hasgraph algorithm introduces periodic 'coin-rounds' where witnesses vote randomly. This
defends against attackers that control the internet and want to partition the network.
-----Original message-----
From: Christian Cachin
Sent: Tuesday, June 27 2017, 6:09 pm
To: Martin Arrivets
Cc: Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc; David Huseby; Christopher Ferris; Giacomo Puri Purini
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Martin,
I've understood that there exists a white paper, yes.
But perhaps you should be aware that mathematically, in a "fully asynchronous
system" as you describe below, with < 1/3 faulty nodes (that crash or
act maliciously), or even with just one node that may crash, the "consensus
problem" cannot be solved with a deterministic protocol.
This is a famous result in distributed systems:
"Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process" usually
just called "FLP impossibility".
See more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance
or a textbook I co-authored - www.distributedprogramming.net - although the
FLP result is not explained in there.
What you describe seems equivalent to this well-understood consensus problem.
In contrast to hashgraph, PBFT has been peer-reviewed and widely understood
to achieve consensus in the appropriate model (eventual synchrony, not
asynchrony).
Regards,
Christian
On 27 Jun 2017 12:03:06 +0000, Martin Arrivets <martin@...> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> The system achieves consensus in the sense that a participant will
> eventually know the exact location of a transaction in history and have
> a mathematical guarantee of finality (that this is the consensus order).
> The knowledge is not probabilistic but a mathematical guarantee.
>
> The proofs in the whitepaper
> <http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01.pdf>; make the
> standard assumptions:
>
> More than 2/3 of the computers are "honest", which means they follow the
> algorithm correctly and are available. Although an honest computer may
> go down for a while (and stop communicating) as long as they eventually
> come back up.
>
> Nodes can collude and are allowed to mostly control the internet . Their
> only limit on control on the internet is that if Alice repeatedly sends
> Bob messages they must eventually allow Bob to receive one.
>
> The proofs are for a fully asynchronous system. There is no assumption
> that an honest node will always respond within a certain interval. If
> all the nodes go to sleep, then progress continues as soon as they come
> back up. In normal conditions with a small number of nodes, consensus
> can happen in less than a second.
>
> I am not aware of any third-party reviews of the whitepaper.
>
> The concepts are very similar to other voting-based BFT algorithms
> except the voting is "virtual". If the security of those systems (like
> PBFT or Tendermint...) has been vetted by the schemes you mention then
> perhaps they could be applied to Hashgraph as well.
>
> Hope this answers you questions.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
> -----Original message-----
> From: Christian Cachin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27 2017, 11:43 am
> To: Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc
> Cc: Martin Arrivets; David Huseby; Christopher Ferris; Giacomo Puri
> Purini Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal:
> Consensus Platform
>
>
> Martin,
>
> Can you point to any independent analysis of the properties achieved by
> Swirlds consensus? In which sense does it reach "consensus"? Are there
> any peer-reviewed publications or other third-party endorsements
> available?
>
> In analogy with cryptography, where such issues have been discussed at
> large, and over many decades, the security of a system should be based
> on well-established and widely agreed-on schemes.
>
> (FYI - I'm a cryptographer and also working on consensus protocols...)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christian
>
>
> ---
> Christian Cachin email: cca@...
> <mailto:cca@...> IBM Research -
> Zurich tel: +41-44-724-8989 Säumerstrasse 4
> CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland http://www.zurich.ibm.com/˜cca
> <http://www.zurich.ibm.com/˜cca>;
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
is this an area where the architecture WG can be leveraged and they can drive?
+1 to this idea. Thanks for bringing it up Shawn.
I think it would be a great idea to have such a library, as long as we can reasonably infer that people will be able to agree on a consensus interface.
So do we have:
1.
General consensus that we can bridge consensus interfaces across projects.
2.
People across multiple projects willing to lead this effort.
If we have those two things, I think this makes perfect sense.
As a first step towards looking into the feasibility of such a project, how about we have a group/meeting at the upcoming contributors’ summit focused on consensus
interfaces? This seems like a productive use of our time in Milwaukee.
Thanks,
Hart
From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...]
On Behalf Of Baohua Yang
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:28 AM
To: Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: Silas Davis <silas@...>; Stefan Buhrmester <buhrmi@...>; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
It would be a good idea if we can have some consensus library that is sharable among different blockchains, that's more valuable than a single implementation.
We have Ursa which covers the crypto techniques already.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:12 AM Shawn Amundson <amundson@...> wrote:
I'm a big fan of the idea of top-level consensus projects. We've
As a community, we've already had many conversations about consolidating what we already have across the existing projects. The effort to maintain consensus engines is exceptionally high, which makes them good candidates for sharing across
the DLT projects. The previous conversations have focused on what we would need to do in order to have a universal consensus API across projects.
Fundamentally what we need out of that universal consensus API:
1. A library which can work with both Rust and Go
2. DLT agnostic, so all the DLTs can adopt it. This means it does not define any network protocols, should not define it's own system processes, etc.
2a. It should not define a networking layer (it should rely on the DLT to provide it)
We've started down this path within our Sawtooth work. The initial iteration can be seen in Sawtooth's existing consensus engine design, and we are working on a library-based iteration of the approach to make it more easily consumable outside
of Sawtooth.
I'd like to see a commitment in this project to support all Hyperledger DLTs. That support can come in the form of being agnostic (doing the Fabric/Burrow integration in Fabric/Burrow and keeping Babble agnostic so it can be adopted by
other projects), which is the approach taken by Ursa and Transact.
Eventually, maybe we end up with a lot of top-level consensus projects:
- Consensus API - defines the APIs which consensus engines implement and the DLT-facing Rust and Go APIs for using them
- PBFT - derived from Sawtooth's PBFT implementation
- PoET - derived from Sawtooth's PoET implementation
- Raft - derived from Fabric or Sawtooth's Raft implementations
- other projects implementing the Consensus API
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library.
It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester <buhrmi@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:
Thanks for the information Brian,
Before we go on to take care of the patent issues and changing the name we need to establish if it actually makes sense to incorporate our code base with Hyperledger.
On our side, we will need to show that the algorithm performs well compared to other comparable systems and that it has other qualitative advantages.
It also seems that there is no consensus among the TSC as to whether this type of project is a fit architecturally for Hyperledger.
So it would be good to keep the discussion going and to put the proposal on hold until these points are addressed.
I want to follow up and state that Leemon Baird (Hashgraph author) had reached out to me, and I asked him to confirm that this interpretation matches his understanding. It sounds like they have multiple patents awarded and others filed
and awaiting award relating to hashgraph, and we'd need either a clear grant to those patents as applied to Hyperledger code (essentially a DCO) from them or a statement that indeed their patents do not read upon Babble for the reasons you gave, before giving
the OK here for babble to be contributed. Otherwise you're asking a lot of people to take on a difficult-to-quantify risk, and patent issues are much more challenging to fix later than say copyright or trademark issues.
Regarding the name - it has to be a name that isn't trademarked or otherwise owned/managed by another company, as that could lead to confusion. Sometimes it's best to come up with a new name as it enters, such as happened with Fabric, Sawtooth, Indy, and Burrow.
I take it
babble.io would still be a company & trademark you'd want to keep.
Brian
On 06/28/2017 11:14 AM, Martin Arrivets wrote:
Hello Brian,
Here is a link to a document describing the IP landscape around the issue:
We suggest the name Babble.
-----Original message-----
From: Brian Behlendorf via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Wednesday, June 28 2017, 5:30 pm
To:
hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
I can ask our counsel once we know more about what's being proposed, and how that relates to the patent landscape. Can someone involved in the proposal provide a write-up (which should
be part of the repository, eventually) that details the known IP in this field, and how it relates to the project? Just forwarding this thread probably isn't enough to go on.
Also, can we call this something more creative than just "Consensus Platform"?
Brian
On 06/28/2017 09:22 AM, Middleton, Dan via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
I don’t view journal publication as a gate on adding a project. It can be a factor in assessing technical merit but not the only factor. I’ll be looking whether there is sufficient
detail/formality in the proposal and its references to assess that technical merit - regardless of academic status.
Part of the notion of pluggable consensus is to enable users to make informed tradeoffs in security and performance guarantees for different deployment environments.
The TSC also has a governance role on licensing. From this thread, specific patent concerns have been raised. I request that Hyperledger’s legal counsel provide some guidance to the
TSC on that risk.
Regards,
Dan
I am a bit more leery of viewing academic peer-review as a gating function for new projects joining Hyperledger. It is completely appropriate IMHO for the Fabric maintainer community to state that they will only include consensus
plug-ins in the Fabric install that meet some criteria for quality, and peer-reviewed consensus mechanisms may be that. But not all possible consensus plug-ins need to be included within the Fabric project. We could accept a new Hyperledger project to build
a new/different consensus plug-in, with a different set of maintainers, who set their own standards for the proven-ness of the algorithm. That might be the right thing for a Hashgraph plugin, especially if there are some edge-case patent concerns.
Brian
On 06/27/2017 11:03 AM, Hart Montgomery via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
Hi Martin,
Is there a reason this hasn’t been submitted to a conference for peer review? I’d highly recommend doing so—you’ll have a lot more credibility with regards to people believing the
protocol if you can get it published in some conference proceedings. If you need help, I bet there are people on this list who would be happy to point you in the right direction.
As it is, I’d be wary of accepting any new crypto or consensus into Hyperledger that hasn’t been published in a reputable conference or heavily reviewed and documented by outsiders.
It sets the precedent that the TSC or other members of the community would have to be academic-style crypto reviewers in order to properly assess new contributions. While some of us may be, it puts an impossible burden on those that are not, and the appropriate
place for new research to be evaluated (which new crypto or consensus is) is an academic conference anyways. Additionally, to be truly safe, lots of time and review is needed for protocols that will be critical to systems. For instance, the SHA-3 competition
and review process took five years. While we don’t need that much time for new consensus algorithms, I think this is still an area where it is much better to be safe than sorry.
Thanks for your time, and have a great day.
Hart
Indeed the problem cannot be solved with a
deterministic protocol
But there are ways to circumvent the FLP theorem by sacrificing determinism
cf Rabin, M.O. (1983) ‘Randomized Byzantine generals’ for
example.
It is possible for a nondeterministic system to achieve consensus with probability
That is what the Hashgraph does and that is what I meant when I wrote that participants
will "eventually" (with probability one) know the exact location of a transaction in history.
The Hasgraph algorithm introduces periodic 'coin-rounds' where witnesses vote randomly. This
defends against attackers that control the internet and want to partition the network.
-----Original message-----
From: Christian Cachin
Sent: Tuesday, June 27 2017, 6:09 pm
To: Martin Arrivets
Cc: Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc; David Huseby; Christopher Ferris; Giacomo Puri Purini
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Martin,
I've understood that there exists a white paper, yes.
But perhaps you should be aware that mathematically, in a "fully asynchronous
system" as you describe below, with < 1/3 faulty nodes (that crash or
act maliciously), or even with just one node that may crash, the "consensus
problem" cannot be solved with a deterministic protocol.
This is a famous result in distributed systems:
"Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process" usually
just called "FLP impossibility".
See more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance
or a textbook I co-authored - www.distributedprogramming.net - although the
FLP result is not explained in there.
What you describe seems equivalent to this well-understood consensus problem.
In contrast to hashgraph, PBFT has been peer-reviewed and widely understood
to achieve consensus in the appropriate model (eventual synchrony, not
asynchrony).
Regards,
Christian
On 27 Jun 2017 12:03:06 +0000, Martin Arrivets <martin@...> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> The system achieves consensus in the sense that a participant will
> eventually know the exact location of a transaction in history and have
> a mathematical guarantee of finality (that this is the consensus order).
> The knowledge is not probabilistic but a mathematical guarantee.
>
> The proofs in the whitepaper
> <http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01.pdf>; make the
> standard assumptions:
>
> More than 2/3 of the computers are "honest", which means they follow the
> algorithm correctly and are available. Although an honest computer may
> go down for a while (and stop communicating) as long as they eventually
> come back up.
>
> Nodes can collude and are allowed to mostly control the internet . Their
> only limit on control on the internet is that if Alice repeatedly sends
> Bob messages they must eventually allow Bob to receive one.
>
> The proofs are for a fully asynchronous system. There is no assumption
> that an honest node will always respond within a certain interval. If
> all the nodes go to sleep, then progress continues as soon as they come
> back up. In normal conditions with a small number of nodes, consensus
> can happen in less than a second.
>
> I am not aware of any third-party reviews of the whitepaper.
>
> The concepts are very similar to other voting-based BFT algorithms
> except the voting is "virtual". If the security of those systems (like
> PBFT or Tendermint...) has been vetted by the schemes you mention then
> perhaps they could be applied to Hashgraph as well.
>
> Hope this answers you questions.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
> -----Original message-----
> From: Christian Cachin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27 2017, 11:43 am
> To: Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc
> Cc: Martin Arrivets; David Huseby; Christopher Ferris; Giacomo Puri
> Purini Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal:
> Consensus Platform
>
>
> Martin,
>
> Can you point to any independent analysis of the properties achieved by
> Swirlds consensus? In which sense does it reach "consensus"? Are there
> any peer-reviewed publications or other third-party endorsements
> available?
>
> In analogy with cryptography, where such issues have been discussed at
> large, and over many decades, the security of a system should be based
> on well-established and widely agreed-on schemes.
>
> (FYI - I'm a cryptographer and also working on consensus protocols...)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christian
>
>
> ---
> Christian Cachin email: cca@...
> <mailto:cca@...> IBM Research -
> Zurich tel: +41-44-724-8989 Säumerstrasse 4
> CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland http://www.zurich.ibm.com/˜cca
> <http://www.zurich.ibm.com/˜cca>;
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
hmontgomery@us.fujitsu.com <hmontgomery@...>
+1 to this idea. Thanks for bringing it up Shawn.
I think it would be a great idea to have such a library, as long as we can reasonably infer that people will be able to agree on a consensus interface.
So do we have:
1.
General consensus that we can bridge consensus interfaces across projects.
2.
People across multiple projects willing to lead this effort.
If we have those two things, I think this makes perfect sense.
As a first step towards looking into the feasibility of such a project, how about we have a group/meeting at the upcoming contributors’ summit focused on consensus
interfaces? This seems like a productive use of our time in Milwaukee.
Thanks,
Hart
From: tsc@... [mailto:tsc@...]
On Behalf Of Baohua Yang
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:28 AM
To: Shawn Amundson <amundson@...>
Cc: Silas Davis <silas@...>; Stefan Buhrmester <buhrmi@...>; Hyperledger List <tsc@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
It would be a good idea if we can have some consensus library that is sharable among different blockchains, that's more valuable than a single implementation.
We have Ursa which covers the crypto techniques already.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:12 AM Shawn Amundson < amundson@...> wrote:
I'm a big fan of the idea of top-level consensus projects. We've
As a community, we've already had many conversations about consolidating what we already have across the existing projects. The effort to maintain consensus engines is exceptionally high, which makes them good candidates for sharing across
the DLT projects. The previous conversations have focused on what we would need to do in order to have a universal consensus API across projects.
Fundamentally what we need out of that universal consensus API:
1. A library which can work with both Rust and Go
2. DLT agnostic, so all the DLTs can adopt it. This means it does not define any network protocols, should not define it's own system processes, etc.
2a. It should not define a networking layer (it should rely on the DLT to provide it)
We've started down this path within our Sawtooth work. The initial iteration can be seen in Sawtooth's existing consensus engine design, and we are working on a library-based iteration of the approach to make it more easily consumable outside
of Sawtooth.
I'd like to see a commitment in this project to support all Hyperledger DLTs. That support can come in the form of being agnostic (doing the Fabric/Burrow integration in Fabric/Burrow and keeping Babble agnostic so it can be adopted by
other projects), which is the approach taken by Ursa and Transact.
Eventually, maybe we end up with a lot of top-level consensus projects:
- Consensus API - defines the APIs which consensus engines implement and the DLT-facing Rust and Go APIs for using them
- PBFT - derived from Sawtooth's PBFT implementation
- PoET - derived from Sawtooth's PoET implementation
- Raft - derived from Fabric or Sawtooth's Raft implementations
- other projects implementing the Consensus API
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library.
It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester <buhrmi@...> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...> wrote:
Thanks for the information Brian,
Before we go on to take care of the patent issues and changing the name we need to establish if it actually makes sense to incorporate our code base with Hyperledger.
On our side, we will need to show that the algorithm performs well compared to other comparable systems and that it has other qualitative advantages.
It also seems that there is no consensus among the TSC as to whether this type of project is a fit architecturally for Hyperledger.
So it would be good to keep the discussion going and to put the proposal on hold until these points are addressed.
I want to follow up and state that Leemon Baird (Hashgraph author) had reached out to me, and I asked him to confirm that this interpretation matches his understanding. It sounds like they have multiple patents awarded and others filed
and awaiting award relating to hashgraph, and we'd need either a clear grant to those patents as applied to Hyperledger code (essentially a DCO) from them or a statement that indeed their patents do not read upon Babble for the reasons you gave, before giving
the OK here for babble to be contributed. Otherwise you're asking a lot of people to take on a difficult-to-quantify risk, and patent issues are much more challenging to fix later than say copyright or trademark issues.
Regarding the name - it has to be a name that isn't trademarked or otherwise owned/managed by another company, as that could lead to confusion. Sometimes it's best to come up with a new name as it enters, such as happened with Fabric, Sawtooth, Indy, and Burrow.
I take it
babble.io would still be a company & trademark you'd want to keep.
Brian
On 06/28/2017 11:14 AM, Martin Arrivets wrote:
Hello Brian,
Here is a link to a document describing the IP landscape around the issue:
We suggest the name Babble.
-----Original message-----
From: Brian Behlendorf via hyperledger-tsc
Sent: Wednesday, June 28 2017, 5:30 pm
To:
hyperledger-tsc@...
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
I can ask our counsel once we know more about what's being proposed, and how that relates to the patent landscape. Can someone involved in the proposal provide a write-up (which should
be part of the repository, eventually) that details the known IP in this field, and how it relates to the project? Just forwarding this thread probably isn't enough to go on.
Also, can we call this something more creative than just "Consensus Platform"?
Brian
On 06/28/2017 09:22 AM, Middleton, Dan via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
I don’t view journal publication as a gate on adding a project. It can be a factor in assessing technical merit but not the only factor. I’ll be looking whether there is sufficient
detail/formality in the proposal and its references to assess that technical merit - regardless of academic status.
Part of the notion of pluggable consensus is to enable users to make informed tradeoffs in security and performance guarantees for different deployment environments.
The TSC also has a governance role on licensing. From this thread, specific patent concerns have been raised. I request that Hyperledger’s legal counsel provide some guidance to the
TSC on that risk.
Regards,
Dan
I am a bit more leery of viewing academic peer-review as a gating function for new projects joining Hyperledger. It is completely appropriate IMHO for the Fabric maintainer community to state that they will only include consensus
plug-ins in the Fabric install that meet some criteria for quality, and peer-reviewed consensus mechanisms may be that. But not all possible consensus plug-ins need to be included within the Fabric project. We could accept a new Hyperledger project to build
a new/different consensus plug-in, with a different set of maintainers, who set their own standards for the proven-ness of the algorithm. That might be the right thing for a Hashgraph plugin, especially if there are some edge-case patent concerns.
Brian
On 06/27/2017 11:03 AM, Hart Montgomery via hyperledger-tsc wrote:
Hi Martin,
Is there a reason this hasn’t been submitted to a conference for peer review? I’d highly recommend doing so—you’ll have a lot more credibility with regards to people believing the
protocol if you can get it published in some conference proceedings. If you need help, I bet there are people on this list who would be happy to point you in the right direction.
As it is, I’d be wary of accepting any new crypto or consensus into Hyperledger that hasn’t been published in a reputable conference or heavily reviewed and documented by outsiders.
It sets the precedent that the TSC or other members of the community would have to be academic-style crypto reviewers in order to properly assess new contributions. While some of us may be, it puts an impossible burden on those that are not, and the appropriate
place for new research to be evaluated (which new crypto or consensus is) is an academic conference anyways. Additionally, to be truly safe, lots of time and review is needed for protocols that will be critical to systems. For instance, the SHA-3 competition
and review process took five years. While we don’t need that much time for new consensus algorithms, I think this is still an area where it is much better to be safe than sorry.
Thanks for your time, and have a great day.
Hart
Indeed the problem cannot be solved with a
deterministic protocol
But there are ways to circumvent the FLP theorem by sacrificing determinism
cf Rabin, M.O. (1983) ‘Randomized Byzantine generals’ for
example.
It is possible for a nondeterministic system to achieve consensus with probability
That is what the Hashgraph does and that is what I meant when I wrote that participants
will "eventually" (with probability one) know the exact location of a transaction in history.
The Hasgraph algorithm introduces periodic 'coin-rounds' where witnesses vote randomly. This
defends against attackers that control the internet and want to partition the network.
-----Original message-----
From: Christian Cachin
Sent: Tuesday, June 27 2017, 6:09 pm
To: Martin Arrivets
Cc: Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc; David Huseby; Christopher Ferris; Giacomo Puri Purini
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Martin,
I've understood that there exists a white paper, yes.
But perhaps you should be aware that mathematically, in a "fully asynchronous
system" as you describe below, with < 1/3 faulty nodes (that crash or
act maliciously), or even with just one node that may crash, the "consensus
problem" cannot be solved with a deterministic protocol.
This is a famous result in distributed systems:
"Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process" usually
just called "FLP impossibility".
See more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance
or a textbook I co-authored - www.distributedprogramming.net - although the
FLP result is not explained in there.
What you describe seems equivalent to this well-understood consensus problem.
In contrast to hashgraph, PBFT has been peer-reviewed and widely understood
to achieve consensus in the appropriate model (eventual synchrony, not
asynchrony).
Regards,
Christian
On 27 Jun 2017 12:03:06 +0000, Martin Arrivets <martin@...> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> The system achieves consensus in the sense that a participant will
> eventually know the exact location of a transaction in history and have
> a mathematical guarantee of finality (that this is the consensus order).
> The knowledge is not probabilistic but a mathematical guarantee.
>
> The proofs in the whitepaper
> <http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01.pdf>; make the
> standard assumptions:
>
> More than 2/3 of the computers are "honest", which means they follow the
> algorithm correctly and are available. Although an honest computer may
> go down for a while (and stop communicating) as long as they eventually
> come back up.
>
> Nodes can collude and are allowed to mostly control the internet . Their
> only limit on control on the internet is that if Alice repeatedly sends
> Bob messages they must eventually allow Bob to receive one.
>
> The proofs are for a fully asynchronous system. There is no assumption
> that an honest node will always respond within a certain interval. If
> all the nodes go to sleep, then progress continues as soon as they come
> back up. In normal conditions with a small number of nodes, consensus
> can happen in less than a second.
>
> I am not aware of any third-party reviews of the whitepaper.
>
> The concepts are very similar to other voting-based BFT algorithms
> except the voting is "virtual". If the security of those systems (like
> PBFT or Tendermint...) has been vetted by the schemes you mention then
> perhaps they could be applied to Hashgraph as well.
>
> Hope this answers you questions.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
> -----Original message-----
> From: Christian Cachin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27 2017, 11:43 am
> To: Martin Arrivets via hyperledger-tsc
> Cc: Martin Arrivets; David Huseby; Christopher Ferris; Giacomo Puri
> Purini Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal:
> Consensus Platform
>
>
> Martin,
>
> Can you point to any independent analysis of the properties achieved by
> Swirlds consensus? In which sense does it reach "consensus"? Are there
> any peer-reviewed publications or other third-party endorsements
> available?
>
> In analogy with cryptography, where such issues have been discussed at
> large, and over many decades, the security of a system should be based
> on well-established and widely agreed-on schemes.
>
> (FYI - I'm a cryptographer and also working on consensus protocols...)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christian
>
>
> ---
> Christian Cachin email: cca@...
> <mailto:cca@...> IBM Research -
> Zurich tel: +41-44-724-8989 Säumerstrasse 4
> CH-8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland http://www.zurich.ibm.com/˜cca
> <http://www.zurich.ibm.com/˜cca>;
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
_______________________________________________
hyperledger-tsc mailing list
hyperledger-tsc@...
https://lists.hyperledger.org/mailman/listinfo/hyperledger-tsc
--
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
First off thanks for all the work going into the proposal and the timely responses to this list and the wiki. While there is already collaboration with portions of the Ethereum and EEA communities, more involvement and collaboration is
always very welcome. I think this project could foster even more and I have a just a few questions remaining in my mind after reviewing all the comments in this thread and the wiki.
Adding another framework to Hyperledger presents both opportunities and risks. On the risks side, we are just now at a point where we were starting to see real progress on componentization and steps towards architectural convergence. A
siloed project could upset that progress. I appreciate the Besu proposers expressing a willingness to work with existing component projects (e.g. Transact & Ursa). Is Besu architected in a way to also provide components to the rest of Hyperledger? Are there
pieces that offer independent value?
On the opportunities side, with new frameworks we’ve always had a constantly rising bar… what does this new proposal bring that is unique to our greenhouse. The most prominent item I see is Ethereum mainnet compatibility. Could someone
articulate the value of that in specific terms? I am familiar with the notion of using mainnet as a receipt log. I would like to understand other benefits and use cases for permissioned networks to link with mainnet.
I look forward to discussing this proposal in our steering meeting tomorrow (8/22).
Thanks,
Dan Middleton
Chair, Technical Steering Committee
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Jonathan Levi <jonathan@...>
Reply-To: "jonathan@..." <jonathan@...>
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:19 PM
To: "joseph.lubin@..." <joseph.lubin@...>, Grace Hartley <grace.hartley@...>
Cc: Virgil Griffith <virgil@...>, Dan O'Prey <dan@...>, Hyperledger List <tsc@...>, Daniel Heyman <daniel.heyman@...>, Rob Dawson <rob.dawson@...>, Mohan Venkataraman <mohan.venkataraman@...>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger TSC] Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Joe - we can probably do it, and pretty quickly. We already have both Fabric and Ethereum nodes (full nodes) on the Unbounded Network for quite a while... and we are already bridging Fabric - Quorum (JPM's), etc...
I don't think being under the same foundation will guarantee that people actively "make it work". One can argue that some of the biggest Fabric supporters also part of EEA/TTI and still haven't made this a priority. I wonder who will spend
the money and time..
Also, for those more familiar with the Ethereum Ecosystem - there are so many tools that are not part of Hyperledger, from Truffle to Infura and I don't want to even mention block explorers and others. Do we want a commitment that all these
tools will be part of Hyperledger, or that code will move from these projects (some are with GPL and others) into the respective HL candidates? There are actually announcements left, right and center about truffle adding Fabric support, etc. These developments
are not done in Hyperledger.
-----
What I don't understand is, since when we have ever required anything like some of the things I see below from a project at incubation? Shall we make these a future requirement?
I will put together a wider response tomorrow, actually with a few questions that I belive we should answer within Hyperledger first, before we make so many changes "after a proposal is submitted". We saw it with Grid, which required an
escalation to the board, and we are beginning to see some similar traits.
In the meantime, enjoy the Web3 Summit, Berlin BC Week, where applies.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:20, Joseph Lubin
<joseph.lubin@...> wrote:
We have also engaged in discussions for a year of so with some Fabric focussed groups around finding a project that would benefit from a Fabric-Ethereum bridge. To this point we haven't found a partner that was interested in doing this
with us, but I expect this will happen quite quickly if we are all part of the same foundation.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:08 PM, Grace Hartley <grace.hartley@...> wrote:
Here are our team's thoughts, but we'd love to hear the community's feedback as well.
In the short term we see the majority of interop and cross ledger communication happening at layer 2. We are actively working with teams
in the wider community to ensure that Besu facilitates layer 2 cross ledger communication, particularly working with the web3j team who are adding support for Hyperledger Fabric, and the Truffle team who are doing the same.
In the medium-term we are very interested in interoperability between chains, and we will be investing increasing effort in this direction,
and in doing so expect to leverage many of the existing Hyperledger projects to do so. The two most obvious projects for collaboration currently are Burrow due to it’s EVM execution environment and aim of providing
a
practical base for EVM extensions in a many-chain world. In addition we look towards working with Quilt for its implementation of the interledger
protocol. Quilt is a natural collaboration opportunity due to both the technologies it supports, and the fact that it is a JVM based technology.
Thank you Grace, for the kind response
How do you foresee Besu converge with Hyperledger technologies. For example, do you see Besu converging or inter-operating with Fabric or Sawtooth anytime. I do see blockchain networks going Hybrid as they evolve. There are several other
yperledger projects like URSA and Transact. Quite interested in knowing Besu leveraging these.
Hi All,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. We've responded to them below.
Virgil’s Question:
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
PegaSys' Response:
As Dan mentioned, we had a trademark challenge with Pantheon and we have to switch our name regardless of the Proposal. We chose Hyperledger Besu because “besu”
means base in Japanese. We felt like base indicated how we developed the Ethereum client. We believe it is a solid foundation for blockchain developers to work on to run networks, build applications or send transactions, as an example.
Hyperledger’s naming principles target names that are not “common” words and that are easy to trademark. Unicorn, rainbow and all other words we explored that
have more direct connections to Ethereum will have trademark challenges.
Mohan’s Question:
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned
ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
PegaSys' Response:
The intent for Besu to be submitted in its current form. It can be run on the Ethereum public network or on private permissioned networks, as well as test networks
such as Rinkeby, Ropsten, and Görli. We think public chain compatibility aligns with the enterprise market’s growing interest in using mainnet for a broader and more diverse set of use cases. Because this project is a protocol, it can be used for many different
applications. Enabling cryotocurrency is only one of the applications. This project would be the first public chain compatible client within Hyperledger.
Silas provides a great response on his thoughts about how the project relates to Burrow and some ideas around collaboration here. Burrow is most well known for
its EVM, which could connect in with Besu. They have a number of other components that we have started discussing with Silas. We are excited about closely working with the Hyperledger community to find areas for interoperability across the other projects.
We have ideas mentioned in the Proposal around who we can collaborate with.
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate
Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
There were some trademark issues around "Pantheon", unfortunately
Why rename it?
Hi All, We are excited to share that
PegaSys, the Protocol Engineering team at
ConsenSys, submitted the
Proposal for our Ethereum client, Hyperledger Besu (currently known as Pantheon), for your consideration as a new Hyperledger project.
We welcome your feedback on the Proposal and look forward to engaging with you on it. Feel free to send our team feedback via email or comment
directly in the Proposal document.
Thank you,
PegaSys and ConsenSys Team Joseph Lubin, ConsenSys,
joseph. lubin@ consensys. netDaniel Heyman, ConsenSys/ PegSys,
daniel. heyman@ consensys. netRob Dawson, ConsenSys/ PegaSys,
rob. dawson@ consensys. netGrace Hartley, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
grace. hartley@ consensys. netDanno Ferrin, ConsenSys/PegaSys,
danno. ferrin@ consensys. net
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http:/
/ www. digitalasset. com/ emaildisclaimer. html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
this message.
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Baohua Yang
It would be a good idea if we can have some consensus library that is sharable among different blockchains, that's more valuable than a single implementation.
We have Ursa which covers the crypto techniques already.
Thanks!
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:12 AM Shawn Amundson < amundson@...> wrote: I'm a big fan of the idea of top-level consensus projects. We've
As a community, we've already had many conversations about consolidating what we already have across the existing projects. The effort to maintain consensus engines is exceptionally high, which makes them good candidates for sharing across the DLT projects. The previous conversations have focused on what we would need to do in order to have a universal consensus API across projects.
Fundamentally what we need out of that universal consensus API:
1. A library which can work with both Rust and Go 2. DLT agnostic, so all the DLTs can adopt it. This means it does not define any network protocols, should not define it's own system processes, etc.
2a. It should not define a networking layer (it should rely on the DLT to provide it)
We've started down this path within our Sawtooth work. The initial iteration can be seen in Sawtooth's existing consensus engine design, and we are working on a library-based iteration of the approach to make it more easily consumable outside of Sawtooth.
I'd like to see a commitment in this project to support all Hyperledger DLTs. That support can come in the form of being agnostic (doing the Fabric/Burrow integration in Fabric/Burrow and keeping Babble agnostic so it can be adopted by other projects), which is the approach taken by Ursa and Transact.
Eventually, maybe we end up with a lot of top-level consensus projects:
- Consensus API - defines the APIs which consensus engines implement and the DLT-facing Rust and Go APIs for using them - Babble - Hashgraph - PBFT - derived from Sawtooth's PBFT implementation - PoET - derived from Sawtooth's PoET implementation - Raft - derived from Fabric or Sawtooth's Raft implementations - other projects implementing the Consensus API
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library. It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
Silas
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester < buhrmi@...> wrote: Two years later....
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Sadly it is - but in my IANAL understanding - not in Europe where software patents of this form are not enforceable. MosaicNetworks are currently London based - still just about in Europe...
FWIW I did discuss (i.e. bemoan) the patents to Christian Hasker once, Hedera's CMO. His explanation was that it was designed to avoid fragmentation of the public network they want to launch. This didn't make much sense to me.
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 17:14, Shawn Amundson < amundson@...> wrote: I'm a big fan of the idea of top-level consensus projects. We've
Sorry - finishing the thought there - We've considered Hashgraph in the past but were under the impression that it was patent encumbered.
As a community, we've already had many conversations about consolidating what we already have across the existing projects. The effort to maintain consensus engines is exceptionally high, which makes them good candidates for sharing across the DLT projects. The previous conversations have focused on what we would need to do in order to have a universal consensus API across projects.
Fundamentally what we need out of that universal consensus API:
1. A library which can work with both Rust and Go 2. DLT agnostic, so all the DLTs can adopt it. This means it does not define any network protocols, should not define it's own system processes, etc.
2a. It should not define a networking layer (it should rely on the DLT to provide it)
We've started down this path within our Sawtooth work. The initial iteration can be seen in Sawtooth's existing consensus engine design, and we are working on a library-based iteration of the approach to make it more easily consumable outside of Sawtooth.
I'd like to see a commitment in this project to support all Hyperledger DLTs. That support can come in the form of being agnostic (doing the Fabric/Burrow integration in Fabric/Burrow and keeping Babble agnostic so it can be adopted by other projects), which is the approach taken by Ursa and Transact.
Eventually, maybe we end up with a lot of top-level consensus projects:
- Consensus API - defines the APIs which consensus engines implement and the DLT-facing Rust and Go APIs for using them - Babble - Hashgraph - PBFT - derived from Sawtooth's PBFT implementation - PoET - derived from Sawtooth's PoET implementation - Raft - derived from Fabric or Sawtooth's Raft implementations - other projects implementing the Consensus API
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library. It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
Silas
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester < buhrmi@...> wrote: Two years later....
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
I'm a big fan of the idea of top-level consensus projects. We've
Sorry - finishing the thought there - We've considered Hashgraph in the past but were under the impression that it was patent encumbered.
As a community, we've already had many conversations about consolidating what we already have across the existing projects. The effort to maintain consensus engines is exceptionally high, which makes them good candidates for sharing across the DLT projects. The previous conversations have focused on what we would need to do in order to have a universal consensus API across projects.
Fundamentally what we need out of that universal consensus API:
1. A library which can work with both Rust and Go 2. DLT agnostic, so all the DLTs can adopt it. This means it does not define any network protocols, should not define it's own system processes, etc.
2a. It should not define a networking layer (it should rely on the DLT to provide it)
We've started down this path within our Sawtooth work. The initial iteration can be seen in Sawtooth's existing consensus engine design, and we are working on a library-based iteration of the approach to make it more easily consumable outside of Sawtooth.
I'd like to see a commitment in this project to support all Hyperledger DLTs. That support can come in the form of being agnostic (doing the Fabric/Burrow integration in Fabric/Burrow and keeping Babble agnostic so it can be adopted by other projects), which is the approach taken by Ursa and Transact.
Eventually, maybe we end up with a lot of top-level consensus projects:
- Consensus API - defines the APIs which consensus engines implement and the DLT-facing Rust and Go APIs for using them - Babble - Hashgraph - PBFT - derived from Sawtooth's PBFT implementation - PoET - derived from Sawtooth's PoET implementation - Raft - derived from Fabric or Sawtooth's Raft implementations - other projects implementing the Consensus API
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library. It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
Silas
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester < buhrmi@...> wrote: Two years later....
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
I'm a big fan of the idea of top-level consensus projects. We've
As a community, we've already had many conversations about consolidating what we already have across the existing projects. The effort to maintain consensus engines is exceptionally high, which makes them good candidates for sharing across the DLT projects. The previous conversations have focused on what we would need to do in order to have a universal consensus API across projects.
Fundamentally what we need out of that universal consensus API:
1. A library which can work with both Rust and Go 2. DLT agnostic, so all the DLTs can adopt it. This means it does not define any network protocols, should not define it's own system processes, etc.
2a. It should not define a networking layer (it should rely on the DLT to provide it)
We've started down this path within our Sawtooth work. The initial iteration can be seen in Sawtooth's existing consensus engine design, and we are working on a library-based iteration of the approach to make it more easily consumable outside of Sawtooth.
I'd like to see a commitment in this project to support all Hyperledger DLTs. That support can come in the form of being agnostic (doing the Fabric/Burrow integration in Fabric/Burrow and keeping Babble agnostic so it can be adopted by other projects), which is the approach taken by Ursa and Transact.
Eventually, maybe we end up with a lot of top-level consensus projects:
- Consensus API - defines the APIs which consensus engines implement and the DLT-facing Rust and Go APIs for using them - Babble - Hashgraph - PBFT - derived from Sawtooth's PBFT implementation - PoET - derived from Sawtooth's PoET implementation - Raft - derived from Fabric or Sawtooth's Raft implementations - other projects implementing the Consensus API
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library. It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
Silas
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester < buhrmi@...> wrote: Two years later....
|
|
|
Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Time flies...
If Martin is still interested, I would support this project. I think it is quite in-line with the recent spate of cross-cutting project types, whilst still being complete as an implementation - it's a fully executable thing not just library. It occupies a similar cutout to that of Tendermint.
Silas
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 05:57, Stefan Buhrmester < buhrmi@...> wrote: Two years later....
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Joe - we can probably do it, and pretty quickly. We already have both Fabric and Ethereum nodes (full nodes) on the Unbounded Network for quite a while... and we are already bridging Fabric - Quorum (JPM's), etc...
BUT,
I don't think being under the same foundation will guarantee that people actively "make it work". One can argue that some of the biggest Fabric supporters also part of EEA/TTI and still haven't made this a priority. I wonder who will spend the money and time..
Also, for those more familiar with the Ethereum Ecosystem - there are so many tools that are not part of Hyperledger, from Truffle to Infura and I don't want to even mention block explorers and others. Do we want a commitment that all these tools will be part of Hyperledger, or that code will move from these projects (some are with GPL and others) into the respective HL candidates? There are actually announcements left, right and center about truffle adding Fabric support, etc. These developments are not done in Hyperledger.
-----
What I don't understand is, since when we have ever required anything like some of the things I see below from a project at incubation? Shall we make these a future requirement?
I will put together a wider response tomorrow, actually with a few questions that I belive we should answer within Hyperledger first, before we make so many changes "after a proposal is submitted". We saw it with Grid, which required an escalation to the board, and we are beginning to see some similar traits.
In the meantime, enjoy the Web3 Summit, Berlin BC Week, where applies.
Jonathan Levi
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:20, Joseph Lubin <joseph.lubin@...> wrote: Mohan,
We have also engaged in discussions for a year of so with some Fabric focussed groups around finding a project that would benefit from a Fabric-Ethereum bridge. To this point we haven't found a partner that was interested in doing this with us, but I expect this will happen quite quickly if we are all part of the same foundation.
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Mohan,
We have also engaged in discussions for a year of so with some Fabric focussed groups around finding a project that would benefit from a Fabric-Ethereum bridge. To this point we haven't found a partner that was interested in doing this with us, but I expect this will happen quite quickly if we are all part of the same foundation.
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Hi Mohan,
Here are our team's thoughts, but we'd love to hear the community's feedback as well.
In the short term we see the majority of interop and cross ledger communication happening at layer 2. We are actively working with teams in the wider community to ensure that Besu facilitates layer 2 cross ledger communication, particularly working with the web3j team who are adding support for Hyperledger Fabric, and the Truffle team who are doing the same.
In the medium-term we are very interested in interoperability between chains, and we will be investing increasing effort in this direction, and in doing so expect to leverage many of the existing Hyperledger projects to do so. The two most obvious projects for collaboration currently are Burrow due to it’s EVM execution environment and aim of providing a practical base for EVM extensions in a many-chain world. In addition we look towards working with Quilt for its implementation of the interledger protocol. Quilt is a natural collaboration opportunity due to both the technologies it supports, and the fact that it is a JVM based technology.
Thanks, Grace
Thank you Grace, for the kind response
How do you foresee Besu converge with Hyperledger technologies. For example, do you see Besu converging or inter-operating with Fabric or Sawtooth anytime. I do see blockchain networks going Hybrid as they evolve. There are several other yperledger projects like URSA and Transact. Quite interested in knowing Besu leveraging these.
Thanks Mohan
Hi All,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. We've responded to them below.
Virgil’s Question: Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
PegaSys' Response: As Dan mentioned, we had a trademark challenge with Pantheon and we have to switch our name regardless of the Proposal. We chose Hyperledger Besu because “besu” means base in Japanese. We felt like base indicated how we developed the Ethereum client. We believe it is a solid foundation for blockchain developers to work on to run networks, build applications or send transactions, as an example.
Hyperledger’s naming principles target names that are not “common” words and that are easy to trademark. Unicorn, rainbow and all other words we explored that have more direct connections to Ethereum will have trademark challenges.
Mohan’s Question: Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Silas provides a great response on his thoughts about how the project relates to Burrow and some ideas around collaboration here. Burrow is most well known for its EVM, which could connect in with Besu. They have a number of other components that we have started discussing with Silas. We are excited about closely working with the Hyperledger community to find areas for interoperability across the other projects. We have ideas mentioned in the Proposal around who we can collaborate with. Thanks, Grace
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Regards
Mohan Venkataraman Chainyard
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
-V
There were some trademark issues around "Pantheon", unfortunately
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:28 PM Morgan Bauer < mbauer@...> wrote: Why rename it?
Hi All,
We are excited to share that PegaSys, the Protocol Engineering team at ConsenSys, submitted the Proposal for our Ethereum client, Hyperledger Besu (currently known as Pantheon), for your consideration as a new Hyperledger project.
We welcome your feedback on the Proposal and look forward to engaging with you on it. Feel free to send our team feedback via email or comment directly in the Proposal document. Thank you, PegaSys and ConsenSys Team
Joseph Lubin, ConsenSys, joseph.lubin@...Daniel Heyman, ConsenSys/ PegSys, daniel.heyman@...Rob Dawson, ConsenSys/ PegaSys, rob.dawson@...Grace Hartley, ConsenSys/PegaSys, grace.hartley@...Danno Ferrin, ConsenSys/PegaSys, danno.ferrin@...
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
|
|
|
Re: Monthly Hyperledger Contributor-MC Meetings
Hope as many of you can make it as possible! Would love to bridge the gap more between marketing and technical side, especially when it comes to project specific marketing.
Hi all,
Starting Sept 11th, there will be a monthly call hosted by the
Marketing Committee chairs (currently Dan O'Prey and Alissa
Worley), and our marketing lead Jessica Rampen, to build a
dialogue with the technical community about how to better promote
what you're building, and how to involve you in the opportunities
(press & analysts, content, speaking opps, etc) that we
receive and are lining up.
It'll be at 9am on the 2nd Wednesdays of every month. You can
find the entry for it on the Hyperledger Calendar at https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Calendar+of+Public+Meetings
(look under Sept 11th, and set your time zone as appropriate) and
add it to your calendar that way, or through the Google
Calendar .ics link. All are welcome but in particular we
would like maintainers and active contributors involved, so we can
be the best possible champions of what you're building.
Here's the description from the calendar entry:
The purpose of this call is to discuss marketing related initiatives around the Hyperledger projects and community. This is a great opportunity for project maintainers and contributors to learn how they can get involved in many aspects of marketing including overall messaging, events, content, social media, and PR, to further help the public hear about and understand Hyperledger and its community.
Goal(s):
Improve the communication between marketing and technical leaders in the community Gain guidance and involvement from Hyperledger project technical experts in marketing initiatives Understand how we can better work together to amplify Hyperledger’s public presence and marketing messages
Who should join: Maintainers, active contributors to Hyperledger projects
Dial in information:
The second Wednesday of every month
Kick off call: Wednesday, Sept 11 at 9am PT
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/982600073
One tap mobile
+16465588656,,982600073# US (New York)
+16699006833,,982600073# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
877 369 0926 US Toll-free
855 880 1246 US Toll-free
+1 647 558 0588 Canada
855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 982 600 073
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/abaoIu7JMk
Thanks,
Brian
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|
|
Monthly Hyperledger Contributor-MC Meetings
Hi all,
Starting Sept 11th, there will be a monthly call hosted by the
Marketing Committee chairs (currently Dan O'Prey and Alissa
Worley), and our marketing lead Jessica Rampen, to build a
dialogue with the technical community about how to better promote
what you're building, and how to involve you in the opportunities
(press & analysts, content, speaking opps, etc) that we
receive and are lining up.
It'll be at 9am on the 2nd Wednesdays of every month. You can
find the entry for it on the Hyperledger Calendar at https://wiki.hyperledger.org/display/HYP/Calendar+of+Public+Meetings
(look under Sept 11th, and set your time zone as appropriate) and
add it to your calendar that way, or through the Google
Calendar .ics link. All are welcome but in particular we
would like maintainers and active contributors involved, so we can
be the best possible champions of what you're building.
Here's the description from the calendar entry:
The purpose of this call is to discuss marketing related initiatives around the Hyperledger projects and community. This is a great opportunity for project maintainers and contributors to learn how they can get involved in many aspects of marketing including overall messaging, events, content, social media, and PR, to further help the public hear about and understand Hyperledger and its community.
Goal(s):
Improve the communication between marketing and technical leaders in the community Gain guidance and involvement from Hyperledger project technical experts in marketing initiatives Understand how we can better work together to amplify Hyperledger’s public presence and marketing messages
Who should join: Maintainers, active contributors to Hyperledger projects
Dial in information:
The second Wednesday of every month
Kick off call: Wednesday, Sept 11 at 9am PT
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/982600073
One tap mobile
+16465588656,,982600073# US (New York)
+16699006833,,982600073# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
877 369 0926 US Toll-free
855 880 1246 US Toll-free
+1 647 558 0588 Canada
855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 982 600 073
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/abaoIu7JMk
Thanks,
Brian
--
Brian Behlendorf
Executive Director, Hyperledger
bbehlendorf@...
Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|
|
Re: Hyperledger Besu Proposal is Live
Thank you Grace, for the kind response
How do you foresee Besu converge with Hyperledger technologies. For example, do you see Besu converging or inter-operating with Fabric or Sawtooth anytime. I do see blockchain networks going Hybrid as they evolve. There are several other yperledger projects like URSA and Transact. Quite interested in knowing Besu leveraging these.
Thanks Mohan
Hi All,
Thanks for the thoughtful questions. We've responded to them below.
Virgil’s Question: Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
PegaSys' Response: As Dan mentioned, we had a trademark challenge with Pantheon and we have to switch our name regardless of the Proposal. We chose Hyperledger Besu because “besu” means base in Japanese. We felt like base indicated how we developed the Ethereum client. We believe it is a solid foundation for blockchain developers to work on to run networks, build applications or send transactions, as an example.
Hyperledger’s naming principles target names that are not “common” words and that are easy to trademark. Unicorn, rainbow and all other words we explored that have more direct connections to Ethereum will have trademark challenges.
Mohan’s Question: Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Silas provides a great response on his thoughts about how the project relates to Burrow and some ideas around collaboration here. Burrow is most well known for its EVM, which could connect in with Besu. They have a number of other components that we have started discussing with Silas. We are excited about closely working with the Hyperledger community to find areas for interoperability across the other projects. We have ideas mentioned in the Proposal around who we can collaborate with. Thanks, Grace
Hyperledger technologies support a permissioned blockchain. They do not, at least to my understanding, have a crypto aspect. Is the intent to incubate Besu as a permissioned ethereum based blockchain and support interoperability with other platforms like Sawtooth, Iroha , Fabric? Also, how does this relate to Hyperledger Burrow?
Regards
Mohan Venkataraman Chainyard
Why the name "Besu"? That seems an odd choice, I'd imagine you'd want to pick an Ethereum-related word like "Rainbow", "Unicorn", or some such.
-V
There were some trademark issues around "Pantheon", unfortunately
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:28 PM Morgan Bauer < mbauer@...> wrote: Why rename it?
Hi All,
We are excited to share that PegaSys, the Protocol Engineering team at ConsenSys, submitted the Proposal for our Ethereum client, Hyperledger Besu (currently known as Pantheon), for your consideration as a new Hyperledger project.
We welcome your feedback on the Proposal and look forward to engaging with you on it. Feel free to send our team feedback via email or comment directly in the Proposal document. Thank you, PegaSys and ConsenSys Team
Joseph Lubin, ConsenSys, joseph.lubin@...Daniel Heyman, ConsenSys/ PegSys, daniel.heyman@...Rob Dawson, ConsenSys/ PegaSys, rob.dawson@...Grace Hartley, ConsenSys/PegaSys, grace.hartley@...Danno Ferrin, ConsenSys/PegaSys, danno.ferrin@...
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.digitalasset.com/emaildisclaimer.html. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
|
|
|
tsc@lists.hyperledger.org Calendar <tsc@...>
Reminder: Hyperledger Grid Quarterly Update Due #tsc-project-update
When:
Thursday, 22 August 2019
View Event
Organizer:
community-architects@...
Description: The Hyperledger Grid project update to the TSC was due 19 August, 2019, and it will be presented to the TSC on 22 August, 2019. Please review prior to the meeting and bring your questions.
|
|
|
