Bitcoin did two things to this paper, first it demonstrates that Byzantine fault tolerance has practical applications, and second it demonstrates that anytime you have to deal with Byzantine fault tolerance the question is not "How do I verify this message?" but "Why am I trying to deal with those assholes?"
"Listen, regardless of which Byzantine fault tolerance protocol you pick, Twitter will still have fewer
than two nines of availability. As it turns out, Ted the Poorly
Paid Datacenter Operator will not send 15 cryptographically
signed messages before he accidentally spills coffee on the air
conditioning unit."
You can tell times have changed because nobody has tape backups these days, just a hope and a prayer that the copy of their data to a different cloud provider will still be good when The Great Oops takes out everything. Unfortunately, everything has a dependency on us-east-1, except that us-east-1 has a critical dependency on the dns servers of a small regional ISP probably somewhere in the southeast US.
This is one of my favorite quotes from technical comedic writing
> “How can you make a reliable computer service?” the presenter will ask in an innocent voice before continuing, “It may be difficult if you can’t trust anything
and the entire concept of happiness is a lie designed by unseen overlords of
endless deceptive power.”
If you didn't know Mickens[0] and you enjoyed this piece, you may want to peruse more of the same[1]. They're not all this good, but they are good.
Your theories on Muppet physiology are childish and naïve, and I viciously refute them in my upcoming article “Parasitic Infections of Muppet Gastrointestinal Hand Holes.”
This is why I no longer work on trustless systems.
In actually useful business problems, there is trust to be "exploited" to make the system simpler than Byzantine algorithms can manage. And what if the trust is exploited for theft? Then the parties take a loss, learn who can't be trusted, and get on with business.
And provides approximately none of the scant benefits of asking Claude to fix my spelling.
Sorry, had to do it for the irony
on edit: changed ChatGPT to Claude, this post was written by me. This is the saddest moment.
> “How can you make a reliable computer service?” the presenter will ask in an innocent voice before continuing, “It may be difficult if you can’t trust anything and the entire concept of happiness is a lie designed by unseen overlords of endless deceptive power.”
If you didn't know Mickens[0] and you enjoyed this piece, you may want to peruse more of the same[1]. They're not all this good, but they are good.
[0] which I discovered through HN years ago, thanks folks [1] https://danielcompton.net/james-mickens-collection
https://mickens.seas.harvard.edu/wisdom/
> A systems programmer will know what to do when society breaks down, because the systems programmer already lives in a world without law.
[0] https://mickens.seas.harvard.edu/tenure-announcement-april-2...
I hope I get to meet him someday.
In actually useful business problems, there is trust to be "exploited" to make the system simpler than Byzantine algorithms can manage. And what if the trust is exploited for theft? Then the parties take a loss, learn who can't be trusted, and get on with business.
Humans trust. Their systems should too.
And indeed as Thompson showed, you've got to trust at some point...
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/2223/R209/Reflections-Trus...