Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Hi Ray,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks for your reply.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the original hashgraph paper: http://www.swirlds.com/downloads/SWIRLDS-TR-2016-01.pdf ? I want to make sure I'm reading the right thing.
Since Babble is based on the original hashgraph paper, if the algorithms from the hashgraph paper have flaws (and Babble is implemented according to the specifications in the paper), then Babble will also have flaws.
The peer review process is designed specifically to find and weed out flaws in technical papers (if they exist), which means that people are much more comfortable assuming that an algorithm/paper is correct if it has been peer reviewed. Since an implementation can only be secure if the underlying algorithm is secure, people are more comfortable with crypto/security code if the paper(s) explaining the underlying algorithms and their relevant proofs have been peer reviewed.
Does this make sense? This is my logic regarding the situation, anyway, and I assume it is the same or similar for at least the other cryptographers regarding this thread.
Thanks for reading this, and have a nice day.
From: Ray Chen [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Hart Montgomery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Martin Arrivets <email@example.com>; Giacomo Puri Purini <firstname.lastname@example.org>; hyperledger-tsc <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform
Hart Montgomery wrote:
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.Babble is one of the implementations based on the original Hashgraph paper, written in Golang, and licensed under Apache License v2. That's what Martin try to propose here.
Babble has nothing to do with whether the original paper has been submitted for peer review or not.