{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/hyperledger/fabric/issues/1631","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/hyperledger/fabric","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/hyperledger/fabric/issues/1631/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/hyperledger/fabric/issues/1631/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/hyperledger/fabric/issues/1631/events","html_url":"https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/issues/1631","id":157231212,"number":1631,"title":"Next Consensus Architecture discussion","user":{"login":"vukolic","id":11092575,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11092575?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic","html_url":"https://github.com/vukolic","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/vukolic/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":43,"created_at":"2016-05-27T15:24:19Z","updated_at":"2016-06-23T04:41:51Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Use the comment field to discuss the [next consensus architecture proposal](http://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/wiki/Next-Consensus-Architecture-Proposal).\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/hyperledger/fabric/issues/comments/227948304","html_url":"https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/issues/1631#issuecomment-227948304","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/hyperledger/fabric/issues/1631","id":227948304,"user":{"login":"manish-sethi","id":14808090,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/14808090?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi","html_url":"https://github.com/manish-sethi","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/manish-sethi/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-06-23T04:41:51Z","updated_at":"2016-06-23T04:41:51Z","body":"@mm-hl yes, your interpretation is correct of what I had in mind while writing \"2a\". \r\nHowever, would like to elaborate further a bit on falling back to the sequential execution.\r\nIf there are a smaller number of conflicts, the approach was to roll back and re-execute only conflicting transactions in the order of relative order they appear in the block. (This requires monitoring for a fresh conflicts with earlier non-conflicting transactions). \r\nSo, falling back to sequential execution of whole block was a worst case choice based on thresholds - 1) number of conflicts in the first round  2) number of iterations that produce a fresh conflicts when re-executing only conflicting transactions."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"manish-sethi"}}