Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[docs] Review: consensus #5578

Open
semenov-vladyslav opened this issue Feb 24, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #5636
Open

[docs] Review: consensus #5578

semenov-vladyslav opened this issue Feb 24, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #5636
Assignees
Labels
devx Issues related to the DevX team documentation Improvements or additions to documentation

Comments

@semenov-vladyslav
Copy link
Contributor

Doc page consensus contains the following defects:

  • consensus doc is pretty shallow, maybe expand a little bit on the protocol and its features
  • On IOTA, consensus has a simple API paragraph -- confusing description of the consensus protocol.
    • What follows after API is not an API. A better way to write that would be: "Users submit transactions and in a while receive a transaction finalization confirmation." Or, "Validators accept transactions, run consensus protocol and produce consistently ordered stream of transactions." But it's common for all blockchains. What specific to IOTA consensus protocol is not clear at all.
    • validators submit -- users/clients submit txs to validators. Validators can't submit anything to consensus, consensus is a state among validators in wider sense or a protocol in narrow sense.
    • the consensus outputs -- again, consensus can't output anything.
    • consistent stream of transactions -- readers might think "consistent" here means "with fixed rate", what actually meant is "transactions are consistently ordered among (honest) majority of validators". Just use clearer terminology.
    • well-behaving validators -- How to identify such "well-behaving" validators? What if these "well-behaving" validators are minority?
  • **Mysticeti** protocol -- put a link to the paper right away. Add a brief description of the protocol and mention that it is DAG-based (eg. "Mysticeti is a leaderless BFT protocol with optimized commit rule designed for low-latency and high-throughput utilizing an uncertified DAG structure", and in the list below we can explain what these specific terms mean and why they matter), otherwise "DAG-based protocol" term is used later without any reference to Mysticeti.
  • leaders on blocks -- undefined term which is not used anywhere else in the docs. Either explain it, or use synonym.
  • It's also good to mention here that IOTA uses delegated PoS consensus.
  • Consensus on IOTA section in about-iota talks about delegated PoS. Consensus on IOTA titled consensus page talks about Mysticeti. It's confusing al least. So, what is the "Consensus on IOTA"? Is it delegated PoS or Mysticeti?
@semenov-vladyslav semenov-vladyslav added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation devx Issues related to the DevX team labels Feb 24, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Product Backlog in Developer Experience Feb 24, 2025
@lucas-tortora lucas-tortora moved this from Product Backlog to Sprint Backlog in Developer Experience Feb 25, 2025
@lucas-tortora lucas-tortora moved this from Sprint Backlog to Product Backlog in Developer Experience Feb 25, 2025
@lucas-tortora lucas-tortora moved this from Product Backlog to Sprint Backlog in Developer Experience Feb 25, 2025
@Ginowine Ginowine moved this from Sprint Backlog to In Progress in Developer Experience Feb 26, 2025
@Ginowine Ginowine linked a pull request Feb 26, 2025 that will close this issue
3 tasks
@Ginowine Ginowine moved this from In Progress to Under Review in Developer Experience Feb 26, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
devx Issues related to the DevX team documentation Improvements or additions to documentation
Projects
Status: Under Review
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants