Timeline for Different versions of Ouroboros consensus protocol
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2022 at 21:05 | comment | added | zhekson | edited original answer to better address your question/comments. My knowledge on the differences between classic/OBFT is limited, and I am expressing my understanding of the philosophical differences between the two. | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 21:04 | history | edited | zhekson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1082 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2022 at 19:41 | comment | added | R R | Ouroboros BFT introduced the concept of "federated network of servers". What was wrong in this concept that caused Praos to replace it. Please note that I understand that Praos introduced the VRF concept to prevent adversaries and also, improved the design assumptions from synchronous network (in BFT) to partially synchronous network (in Praos). But, my question goes back to the "federated network of servers" part in BFT that is replaced by Praos? | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 19:28 | comment | added | R R | Thank you @zhekson for paying attention to this post. However, the link you provided in your answer contains a limited amount of information. For example, it says "It is worth noting that BFT required a larger fraction of honest parties than other Ouroboros versions". But, in Ouroboros BFT paper clearly has been mentioned that the Ouroboros BFT increased the fault tolerant from n/3 (for standard BFTs) to n/2 (like the Classic protocol). | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 17:28 | history | answered | zhekson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |