See the blog post for more related interesting stuff! vasekrozhon.wordpress.com/2024/03/29/why-arguing-generals-matter-for-the-internet/
@dcx45
6 ай бұрын
Byzantine video, byzantine haircut.
@salvlox_
10 күн бұрын
LMAO
@JohnBoen
6 ай бұрын
This was a great video. It reacquainted me with concepts I hadn't needed to use for a while. You explained it at a rate faster than I could recall it - it was like learning it for the first time. Thank you for a great start to my day :)
@KyleeYay
6 ай бұрын
Love your explanations ❤ and visuals!! And sound design!! ❤
@chopczyk374
6 ай бұрын
Can't wait for the next video. Thank you for your time and effort put in this video.
@buidenhong434
3 ай бұрын
Thanks for your explanation! Love from China❤
@rileyn2983
6 ай бұрын
I've watched the 3B1B video and it's great. It only talks about proof of work, though. Can anyone recommend an explanation of proof of stake? I've searched for one but all I can find is crypto bros talking about how supposedly cool it is, and the general idea, but not actually talking about how it works under the hood.
@ch1n3du3
15 күн бұрын
Thanks for another amazing video ❤️ A lot of people are being dumb in the comments but I really appreciate your work
@cmilkau
6 ай бұрын
The problem that makes all blockchain protocols fundamentally insecure is that there is no cryptographic proof of being the leader, so there can be disagreement on how the chain continues due to spoofing (note even when messages are signed a fake leader can send different messages for their own transactions, e.g. sending the same coin to different people). This chain split has happened multiple times in the past. It would be virtually impossible in a cryptographically secure protocol. But actual countermeasures rely on a computational advantage for the honest participants to succeed. A cryptographically secure system would require an astronomical computational advantage for the dishonest parties to succeed, not just a slight one.
@catmaxi2599
6 ай бұрын
Huh? Generally it's always a leaderless protocol so ofc theres no proof of whos the leader? The whole point is to make it decentralized.
@Jai-tl3iq
2 ай бұрын
Awesome video..really understood the topic!!!
@askdf
2 ай бұрын
I came up with the following solution after a long time, which doesn't involve having a leader: The generals will use 3 rounds. In the first round, they will send their Y/N inputs to each other (and of course the traitors will do something arbitrary*). Now each general possesses a row of 12 Y/Ns. In the second round, they will send their row of 12 Y/Ns to each other*. Now each general possesses a square of 12^2 Y/Ns. In the third round, they will send their square of 12^2 Y/Ns to each other*. Now each general possesses a cube of 12^3 Y/Ns. More formally, after the third round, each general possesses a function f : [1, 2, ..., 12]^3 -> {Y, N}. f(i, j, k) is what the ith general said the kth general sent to the jth general sent to the ith general. Now each general will compute a function g: [1, 2, ..., 12]^2 -> {Y, N}, where g(j, k) is the majority of f(i, j, k) among all i. Then each general will compute a function h: [1, 2, ..., 12] -> {Y, N}, where h(k) is the majority of g(j, k) among all j. The general's final decision is the majority of h. I have proof of course but won't bother to put it here, because nobody will read/understand this anyways 🤣 I read a bit of the Lamport paper, and I'm pretty sure this is equivalent to the algorithm described in the paper (although the paper is written in words that I can't understand for some reason).
@Manabender
5 ай бұрын
My initial solution is very simple, but it meets the criteria for any number of traitors. Each general asks all other generals for their opinion. Then, if all generals respond "yes" AND the asking general wants "yes", then agree to "yes". Otherwise, agree to "no". I suspect there is a better solution that allows the honest generals to agree to the majority, assuming the majority is greater than the sum of the minority plus traitors. I am currently too tired to devise such a solution.
@timseguine2
4 ай бұрын
As far as I can tell in this protocol, the generals will always decide "no" unless everybody had the initial opinion of "yes". Under this protocol, traitors can force the answer to always be no if they want (although that wouldn't mean a failure of the protocol). So this solution seems very similar practically to the trivial solution that was ruled out despite satisfying the new rule that was introduced to eliminate the trivial solution.
@ccolombe
6 ай бұрын
Fire video as always! Excited for the next one :)
@zeroTorsion
3 ай бұрын
amazing
@benhoffman4102
6 ай бұрын
DUDE CONGRATS ON THE ACX THING
@ac3_train3r_blak34
6 ай бұрын
Very cool video, but question about 13:40: can't quantum computing theoretically break modern encryption like quantum computing, or is that far off enough from feasibility to not be of concern here?
@jansustar4565
6 ай бұрын
Software is moving away from quantum breakable algorithms (like RSA). Signal (secure messaging platform) for example started using both a traditional and quantum proof asymmetric encryption algorithms. And even if we don't invent quantum computers for another 100 years, organizations already store high value encrypted messages to decrypt once we have the technology. This is called store-now-decrypt-later.
@hellfishii
6 ай бұрын
Wee making it out of bullying with dis one fam 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔉🔉🔉🔉🔉
@iamr0b0tx
6 ай бұрын
13:20 Felt cute might delete later 😂
@cryptonative
6 ай бұрын
As someone who works with bft algorithms on a daily basis this is refreshing clear and we need more of it. Suggestions: Can talk about asynchronous bft algos (eg. HoneyBadger or Dumbo) or DAG based algs (eg. Narwhal and Tusk).
@clementdato6328
6 ай бұрын
Such such great content❤ Vis of algos are so so gooooooood🎉
@wanfuse
6 ай бұрын
you still have to worry about situation where there is unknown numbers if tractors?
@Dardasha_Studios
6 ай бұрын
THIS WAS BRILLIANT!!!
@valentinussofa4135
6 ай бұрын
I love this explanation. Thank you so much.
@Antonio-yy2ec
6 ай бұрын
Pure gold!
@yash1152
21 күн бұрын
7:46 iam assuming that those are red-green colors. but kudos for choosing the perfect red-green blind colors. totally distinguishable like black and white. [sarcasm]
@Babakinha
6 ай бұрын
Awesome vid >:3
@mychannel-te5ke
6 ай бұрын
nice video
@Steerable6827
6 ай бұрын
great video, but i can't lie that hair goes kinda crazy 😅
@cmilkau
6 ай бұрын
why do you need 10 votes to choose the local opinion? If the difference between yes and no is greater than twice the number of traitors, they can't overturn the majority so 9 votes are enough. In general, if you have n voters and x traitors, you must trust n - x votes and you can trust (n + 1)/2 + x votes. Setting both equal yields x = (n - 1)/4 as the max number of traitors this system can deal with, in which case you would have to trust (3n - 1)/4 votes. So I guess that's the ideal choice as it survives the most traitors. For n=12 it yields 8¾, so 9 (if you have ≥8¾ votes, you have ≥9 votes, and otherwise ≤8).
@Arturino_Burachelini
6 ай бұрын
Got distracted from your cuteness 😅
@feuermurmel
6 ай бұрын
Wait, is RSA still a thing? 😮
@Hv4n64u6c
6 ай бұрын
ahoj ríšo 👋
@toastergdofficial
6 ай бұрын
idk why this flopped so hard so far
@lucbloom
6 ай бұрын
Can’t wait for quantum computing to make RSA trivial to break and the consequences it has for the world.
@rennoc6478
6 ай бұрын
AMONG US
@white_145
6 ай бұрын
bro you look like this guy from despicable me
@Valneal
6 ай бұрын
Honestly, at this points it almost feels irresponsible to talk about blockchain and crypto from a purely technical point of view without discussing the absurd amount harm they cause...
@MihaiNicaMath
6 ай бұрын
I actually think it's wonderful to see a video focusing only on the *core mathematics* behind the blockchain algorithm, without actually talking about cryptocurrency as the only application for blockchains. I think in particular they did a good job of connecting directly to the idea of creating consensus without the cryptocurrency-specific details like block rewards etc. The many real life issues with crypto can go in another video imo!
@GuardianChipO
6 ай бұрын
What harm do they cause alone? The only harm I can recall always comes down to bad actors that intend to do the harm to begin with.
@smaza2
6 ай бұрын
agreed - unfortunately blockchains are a politicised data structure, and talking about them neutrally legitimises them. the proof that they are unnecessary is that despite being around for decades now, blockchains have not been widely adopted at all for any usecase other than crypto and NFTs; and yet even with their niche usage, the energy and hardware consumption to physically power blockchains is staggering
@cryptonative
6 ай бұрын
this is like saying to talk about internet is irresponsible because of the harm is causing. you are also confusing crypto with cryptocurrencies which are very different.
@cryptonative
6 ай бұрын
@@smaza2the internet has been around for even more time without being “useful” to most people. if you take a look at the academic work that came out in 2023 you’d be surprised (eg. HotStuff 2, Shoal, Fin). I think it’s irresponsible to politicise the tech as you did without even understanding where it stands and where it’s going.
@gijsb4708
6 ай бұрын
who tf unironically has a bowl haircut
@Dr-Zed
6 ай бұрын
@danieldelacruz7038
6 ай бұрын
polylog
@JasonMitchellofcompsci
6 ай бұрын
Someone developed poor consensus on how to cut your hair. Sorry for the roast. But you might want to adjust where you go, or how you do it.
@cmilkau
6 ай бұрын
Can we please stop the Blockchain bs? There is an older solution that is much more flexible and more importantly *proven* secure. Read up universally composable security or secure multiparty computation. Both approaches allow you to create a virtual trustworthy central authority from a system of unreliable interconnected parties.
@batlin
6 ай бұрын
How is creating a central authority a solution to wanting a *decentralised* network based on consensus? The entire *point* of blockchains (and block lattices or whatever else is new) was to get away from centralised leadership.
Пікірлер: 74