[max_]

>Egalitarian Paxos introduced an alternative, leaderless approach, that allows replicas to order commands collaboratively.

This is exactly how bitcoin works.

Every 10 minutes the network elects a leader to assort & order transactions and also throw out fraudulent transactions.

If he fails to do this, he is not allow to claim his block reward (technically the "coinbase" transaction)

I keep telling people the future of politics is markets & Blockchains.

Its hard to explain comprehensively and what's strange is that no one has written a thorough book on the topic.

I am happy there are people actually writing such material on this topic.

Albeit its a bit too technical.

Computer science is the future of politics & governance. (I don't think AI is any useful but rather distributed systems)

[roenxi]

>> Egalitarian Paxos introduced an alternative, leaderless approach...

> Every 10 minutes the network elects a leader to...

From that it sounds like it is completely different to how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin "elects" a leader node once every so often and this paper claims its protocol does not have a leader node. It is pretty easy to imagine a day passing in the Bitcoin world where one node is in control of all the transactions for that day with no ability for any other peer miner to have any influence at all in what transactions end up in the blockchain.

[mariusor]

> I keep telling people the future of politics is markets & Blockchains.

I hope that you don't mean just things related to cryptocurrencies, because as soon as you demand monetary investment for something, it ceases to be democratic.

[RobotToaster]

> the future of politics is markets & Blockchains.

That just sounds like robber barons with extra steps?

[nathias]

you don't understand why technology of public ledgers would benefit public ledgers?

[paulryanrogers]

Please go on

[bigbadfeline]

> you don't understand why technology of public ledgers would benefit public ledgers?

I do understand that but public ledgers benefiting themselves isn't the point, benefiting the public is, and you seem to imply it - if you don't, please ignore the rest of this comment.

I'd like to join paulryanrogers and ask for a proof because I don't see the public benefits of bitcoin - aiding criminals is the opposite of that.

[beeflet]

The network does not elect a leader. that is a mischaracterization of the PoW process.

It's not like you are hashing based on your public key or something and then you get to sign a block afterwards. You have to commit to a block template before every hash. And also the miner is decided randomly by a weighted hashrate.

Imagine applying this to anything else. The group with the most (extremely specialized) computer power just gets to decide everything?

[FridgeSeal]

> the future of politics is markets & Blockchains.

“Hi everyone, I’m here to excitedly talk about the hyper-capitalist-hellscape I’d like to sell you all! Wait, why are you all leaving?”

[throwawayqqq11]

I wish for a talk about market failures and possible solutions instead.