tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436330762136344379.post8329234180483601998..comments2024-03-26T06:02:24.273-04:00Comments on Metadata: Paper review. Blockchains from a distributed computing perspectiveMurathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07842046940394980130noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436330762136344379.post-63274718245680843362018-10-18T08:26:00.126-04:002018-10-18T08:26:00.126-04:00True, I agree with your statement that - going fro...True, I agree with your statement that - going from a centralized log implementation to a fully-decentralized public blockchain implementation needs some motivation. The article that you wrote seems very nice and I got many learnings from this article which even helped me a lot. I was looking to <a href="https://www.synsoftglobal.com/services/blockchain-development-services" rel="nofollow"> hire dedicated blockchain developers team </a> and got your blog. Thanks for sharing such a great blog.Synsoft Globalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00337838180700613285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8436330762136344379.post-49925633406876112702018-02-09T19:28:47.400-05:002018-02-09T19:28:47.400-05:00The beginning of the paper says to entries arrive ...The beginning of the paper says to entries arrive concurrently on channels. Each channel attempts to lock a table. Once it has a lock it puts it entry in the table and releases the lock. But this could be a DOS attack is a channel holds the lock too long.<br /><br />So a "lockless" implementation follows where the channels put their entries into a shared pool and miners select entries from the pool and do compare-and-swap instructions to put in link-list ledger. But do the channels and miners need to lock the shared pool to insert/delete entries?haroldcarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09763473450957698221noreply@blogger.com