Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 16, 2020. It is now read-only.

Identifying authorship in state-based CRDTs #26

Open
pgte opened this issue May 13, 2018 · 4 comments
Open

Identifying authorship in state-based CRDTs #26

pgte opened this issue May 13, 2018 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor

pgte commented May 13, 2018

Auditing the authors of an op-based CRDTs is very accessible: all the operations can have a distinct author.

State-based CRDTs don't have this property. How should a state-based CRDT keep track of the operations and authors? Ideally, this knowledge should be eventually garbage collection as the operations get older.

@pgte pgte changed the title Identifying operations in state-based CRDTs Identifying authorship in state-based CRDTs May 13, 2018
@satazor
Copy link

satazor commented Jul 11, 2018

Related to #7 #8 and peer-base/peer-star#15

There's a specific section in the RFC explaining how to verify authorship via signatures: https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/peer-star/blob/c249510b4873a9a4b58b245bf97dbe48513a2689/docs/rfc-identity.md#verifying-signatures

@pgte
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgte commented Dec 8, 2018

@satazor how does this relate to the latest work being done on versidag? Will we able to verify the authorship in history? If so, is it something provided by versidag?

@satazor
Copy link

satazor commented Dec 8, 2018

I think they aren’t directly related but you can store what you want in versidag. In case of discussify, whenever a new head comes from another replica, we must somehow only accept that head if it was added by the same identity that created the comment initially and discard otherwise.

@satazor
Copy link

satazor commented Dec 8, 2018

This whole topic needs to be discussed in depth, I’m mostly worried about the CRDT part. Once that is solved, any side-chain based on versidag will also be solved. Even if there are cases where it isn’t, we may add a filter option to the resolve function of versidag they could be verifying signatures.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants