Re: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform

Hart Montgomery

Hi Martin,


Thanks for replying.  There isn’t a set TSC policy on this—what I have said is just my opinion.  However, if you can convince the inventor to submit the paper for peer review, I’d definitely encourage you to do so.  I’m actually surprised this hasn’t been done already since the paper appears to be more than a year old.


And furthermore, please don’t take this to mean I don’t believe efforts like this are useful.  I’m a huge proponent of modular consensus and crypto, and hope Hyperledger has more of this type of thing in the future.  I just want to make sure that there are protocols in place to ensure that, as a community, we deliver secure systems, and all the code/security review in the world won’t help if some critical underlying algorithm is broken.


Thanks a lot for your time and efforts on this, and have a great day.





From: Martin Arrivets [mailto:martin@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:48 AM
To: Hart Montgomery <hmontgomery@...>; Ray Chen <oldsharp@...>
Cc: Giacomo Puri Purini <giacomo@...>; hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...>
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform


Hi Hart and thanks Ray for the clarification,


That is indeed the paper in question.


I fully agree with you and I understand your concerns about the paper not being peer-reviewed.


If that is the policy  of the TSC than we might need to encourage the inventor to submit the paper for peer-review.


Best regards,


-----Original message-----
From: Hart Montgomery
Sent: Tuesday, June 27 2017, 8:38 pm
To: Ray Chen
Cc: Martin Arrivets; Giacomo Puri Purini; hyperledger-tsc
Subject: RE: [Hyperledger Project TSC] Project Proposal: Consensus Platform

Hi Ray,

Thanks for your reply.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the original hashgraph paper: ?  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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Chen [mailto:oldsharp@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Hart Montgomery <hmontgomery@...>
Cc: Martin Arrivets <martin@...>; Giacomo Puri Purini <giacomo@...>; hyperledger-tsc <hyperledger-tsc@...>
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.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.