HN: "Forkable strings makes unrealistic assumptions."

Someone on HN claims to have analyzed the Ouroboros white paper and claims “Forkable strings makes unrealistic assumptions.”,

then later a doubt:

“As you might have noticed already, this property assumes that all honest nodes can reliably receive all other honest nodes’ blocks. The paper in fact freely admits this in various places, e.g. on page 10 and page 16. I was already skeptical when reading that, but the fact that this assumption forms such a key requirement of their security proof raised my eyebrow(s) even further.”

His full post is here:

Can someone from the team respond to him on HN as well as here? I believe it’s important to respond to these on their merit. And why isn’t this person contacting Cardano directly if he believes the assumptions are unrealistic?


That’s beign adressed with delta Q or am i wrong?

Can you provide more information about delta Q? I can’t find any by searching the web and these forums.

This was the only thing I can find:

I wish Cardano was more responsive to inquiries.

That video describes a lot of basic functionality, and it never gives an explanation of what delta Q is. The speaker seems to refer to in place of “average latency” in his talk. I don’t see the relevance.

1 Like

I added my take on it, here:

I don’t know if I’m right or not, but I hope to see other’s thoughts.

Edit: I was trying to delete and replace my reply with edits, and for some reason, I can’t reply at all anymore.

Edit2: was able to successfully publish a response under another username

This was said in other video, delta Q is a technic used in telecomunication to meassure response of signals, they are trying to model what the network will behave like.
If it works, it will be a great tool for all software industry.

That’s great, but it has nothing to do with the original topic.

IBM link
found something related… sorry for miss carring you