From c2b98dd537e2317436951820d4c261413f4f2cb1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jet Hughes Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 14:39:37 +1300 Subject: [PATCH] vault backup: 2022-11-30 14:39:37 --- content/notes/think-writing.md | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/notes/think-writing.md b/content/notes/think-writing.md index a12a00ea4..806b2e54b 100644 --- a/content/notes/think-writing.md +++ b/content/notes/think-writing.md @@ -355,6 +355,15 @@ Yesterday - started to think about what I am looking for in a base. I realised I still dont really know and that starting from a base might not actually help me to find that out. I need to identify issues with current systems, because to me it seems like I could almost just use an existing p- maybe not. I think I just need to write down a basic overview of what I want, then work out the details later. Meeting with david -- I should look into some specific scenarios and how they might play out within existing closed blockchain systems +- I should look into some specific scenarios and how they might play out within existing closed blockchain systems. e.g., + - kicking out one or more participants + - forking due to not trusting or agreeing with other participants + - what if one participant is a bad actor and the other want to remove them, but the bad actors vote is required - The idea of tethering a closed blockchain to a public blockchain is worth considering -- Rather than acting directly as a source of truth, a blockchain as applied to the veracity project should \ No newline at end of file +- Rather than acting directly as a source of truth, a blockchain as applied to the veracity project should act as a store of records that can then be used by relevant authorities make decisions – which can then be recorded on the chain +- maybe consider something related to a reputation system like ebay (talk to andrew), trademe, etc +- regarding scope: this is something I need to think about. Does it make sense to have a closed blockchain with 100s or 1000s of participants. This is somewhere where we would like have a small group of validator nodes and many less-priviledged participant nodes +- my role is this project is exploratory. By considering many small scenarios, I might eventually find one which breaks the existing architectures and I can then work on a solution for that. +- i should spend some time to try and get the prolog kernel working + - try rolling back to an earlier version +- also test the aforementioned scenario using a small network of ~10 participants \ No newline at end of file