Only paper I would have in mind is the CRDT paper from Letia, Preguiça, and Shapiro which I'm sure you're already familiar with.
The thing that bothers me the most is that it appears your entire algorithm (Hypothetical Amnesia Machine) has no proofs behind it. Specifically, your wiki article here:
Has a giant hole where the substance would be. That bothers me because you are putting this potentially cool thing out there WAY BEFORE you have done the actual work.
Again, I applaud the fact that you actually put this together and you implemented it. And I understand it's v.0.1.0. That's fine.
Claiming this: "All conflict resolution happens locally in each peer using a deterministic algorithm. Such that eventual consistency is guaranteed across all writes within the mesh, with fault tolerant retries built in at each step. Data integrity is now a breeze."
without any proof that algorithm actually does this reliably and WITHOUT DATA LOSS bothers me. There is so much snake oil out there, you don't need to be starting off on the wrong foot.
I'm no expert at this stuff (I've only been working on distributed systems for about 5 years) but I'm also not claiming to be an expert. I just know that there is a lot of hand waving out there, and I think it would be important to actually prove your algorithm.
Please don't assume I haven't done the "actual work", I have. The academic side of the equation with proofs is going to take much longer than the timeframe from my investors for this seed round. I openly admit that, but I'd rather do good of getting this out in peoples hands to actually play and build stuff with.
To be honest, I'll probably want to get Jepsen tests and the sort built before the academic side of the equation is completed. Thank you for being skeptical (I like that), but please don't ignore or not experiment with something just because a paper hasn't been published yet. Who knows, if you did play with it, you might like it enough to help write the paper - but maybe that is me being too optimistic.
Only paper I would have in mind is the CRDT paper from Letia, Preguiça, and Shapiro which I'm sure you're already familiar with.
The thing that bothers me the most is that it appears your entire algorithm (Hypothetical Amnesia Machine) has no proofs behind it. Specifically, your wiki article here:
https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/Conflict-Resolution-with-G...
Has a giant hole where the substance would be. That bothers me because you are putting this potentially cool thing out there WAY BEFORE you have done the actual work.
Again, I applaud the fact that you actually put this together and you implemented it. And I understand it's v.0.1.0. That's fine.
Claiming this: "All conflict resolution happens locally in each peer using a deterministic algorithm. Such that eventual consistency is guaranteed across all writes within the mesh, with fault tolerant retries built in at each step. Data integrity is now a breeze."
without any proof that algorithm actually does this reliably and WITHOUT DATA LOSS bothers me. There is so much snake oil out there, you don't need to be starting off on the wrong foot.
I'm no expert at this stuff (I've only been working on distributed systems for about 5 years) but I'm also not claiming to be an expert. I just know that there is a lot of hand waving out there, and I think it would be important to actually prove your algorithm.
My 2¢.