-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/04/14 23:58, Ximin Luo wrote:
On 30/04/14 22:59, Michael Rogers wrote:
I have a hunch that for linear conversations, something like the
CAP theorem holds: if there's a partition, either the
conversation has to pause or you have to give up
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Trevor Perrin wrote:
Awesome threads, here's what I think I've learned:
* Even if we don't solve the ice-cream problem, doing (1) and
(somehow) canonicalizing the partial order into a linear order still
seems worthwhile, since it could detect a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29/04/14 13:54, Ximin Luo wrote:
In a word, Usenet. This has the nice property that if a subset
of the members are connected to each other but disconnected from
the other members, they can carry on the conversation and see
each other's
On 30/04/14 22:59, Michael Rogers wrote:
I have a hunch that for linear conversations, something like the CAP
theorem holds: if there's a partition, either the conversation has to
pause or you have to give up consistency. Threaded conversations can
be partition tolerant because they can
On 30/04/14 23:58, Ximin Luo wrote:
- for any given user, if they refer to parents P in one event E, their future
event E' = E must refer to parents P' all of whose elements are = all
elements of P. Or equivalently, ancestors(E) is a subset of ancestors(E').
Scratch that, the or equivalently
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 27/04/14 18:45, Ben Laurie wrote:
If it is delayed for all recipients, then causality cannot be
violated :-)
Here's a crazy idea.
Each client maintains a list of messages it knows each other
client has seen (because that client has told
On 29/04/14 09:15, Michael Rogers wrote:
On 27/04/14 18:45, Ben Laurie wrote:
If it is delayed for all recipients, then causality cannot be
violated :-)
Here's a crazy idea.
Each client maintains a list of messages it knows each other
client has seen (because that client has told it so).
On 26/04/14 16:39, Moxie Marlinspike wrote:
3) Each message is displayed with a small icon or color which indicates
that you've seen the message it is responding to.
4) If you long-click the message, it'll display In reply to...
That way when Alice says I do! in reply to what she thought
On 04/27/2014 07:39 AM, Ximin Luo wrote:
I'm not so sure about displaying messages where you haven't yet seen
their parents yet. This violates causality, and the principle of
delivering messages in-order.
A fundamental premise of asynchronous messaging is that any message can
be delayed
On 27 April 2014 18:40, Moxie Marlinspike mo...@thoughtcrime.org wrote:
On 04/27/2014 07:39 AM, Ximin Luo wrote:
I'm not so sure about displaying messages where you haven't yet seen
their parents yet. This violates causality, and the principle of
delivering messages in-order.
A fundamental
On 27/04/14 13:45, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 27 April 2014 18:40, Moxie Marlinspike mo...@thoughtcrime.org wrote:
On 04/27/2014 07:39 AM, Ximin Luo wrote:
I'm not so sure about displaying messages where you haven't yet seen
their parents yet. This violates causality, and the principle of
On 04/26/2014 06:52 AM, Ximin Luo wrote:
There are some nice properties to aim for when one is developing an
algorithm that turns a partial order (things don't get
misinterpreted) into a linear order (nicer for users):
- static order (you don't need to redraw the UI later) - globally
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/04/14 19:55, Trevor Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Michael Rogers
mich...@briarproject.org wrote:
If we're aiming to support linear conversations rather than
threaded conversations, we may need even less information than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/04/14 00:54, Trevor Perrin wrote:
Aren't those algorithms more general than we need? I think
they're designed to track causal order when messages can be
exchanged between individual entities. But we're looking at chat
protocols where
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Ximin Luo infini...@pwned.gg wrote:
On 19/04/14 16:45, Trevor Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Ximin Luo infini...@pwned.gg wrote:
On 19/04/14 00:54, Trevor Perrin wrote:
To handle join and part events, I think we can assume these
actions are
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Tom Ritter t...@ritter.vg wrote:
I think that heartbeats are going to be important. With the partial
ordering UI I outlined, it's possible to reflow the conversation N
seconds into the past, where N is whatever window is deemed
acceptable. The way I expect it
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Michael Rogers
mich...@briarproject.org wrote:
If we're aiming to support linear conversations rather than threaded
conversations, we may need even less information than that. We can
model a linear conversation as a series of instants, with one or more
On 19/04/14 00:54, Trevor Perrin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Carmel-Veilleux
a...@miniguru.ca wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Tony Arcieri basc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Trevor Perrin tr...@trevp.net wrote:
(1) It seems feasible to
On 19/04/14 16:45, Trevor Perrin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Ximin Luo infini...@pwned.gg wrote:
On 19/04/14 00:54, Trevor Perrin wrote:
To handle join and part events, I think we can assume these
actions are represented as messages which operate on the member-set
each
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Tony Arcieri basc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Trevor Perrin tr...@trevp.net wrote:
(1) It seems feasible to put messages into a causal/partial order by
having them piggyback references and hashes to their parents (aka
causal
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Carmel-Veilleux
a...@miniguru.ca wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Tony Arcieri basc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Trevor Perrin tr...@trevp.net wrote:
(1) It seems feasible to put messages into a causal/partial order
To handle join and part events, I think we can assume these
actions are represented as messages which operate on the member-set
each participant recognizes. The question Ximin has thought about
earlier is how to handle merging partially-ordered changes to the
member-set
I don't know if we
22 matches
Mail list logo
