Juno is run on
a different consensus model entirely, inspired by a variant of Raft consensus.
Not exact matches
The IPCC is straightforward in its introduction to attribution and doesn't claim anything other than that attribution needs some kind of
modelling (because we can't put the climate in a bottle) and that this method relies on a number of
different tactics, including the
consensus of what these tactics mean of the experts.
Forgot to add: DDT has a 1/2 life of a year or so, orders of magnitude
different than the
consensus modeling predicted and everyone accepted as gospel.
The relative dominance of
different plant types is also predicted to change, but there is little
consensus among the
models as to the details.
There was very little
consensus between the
different models run by the UK Met Office.
As you see, according to the AR4 — a
consensus document written for the UN's IPCC and published in 2007 —
models predict the effect of GHG's as distinctly
different from that of solar or volcanic forcings.
There were many
different representations of uncertainty (e.g., a range in
models versus an expert judgment) in the TAR, and the
consensus RF bar chart did not generate a total RF or uncertainties for use in the subsequent IPCC Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2001b)(Chapters 2 and 7; Section 9.2).
Despite
different stakeholders wanting
different things, this democratic
model of
consensus is one of the very core reasons why people trust and believe in digital currencies like Bitcoin.
Perhaps foremost among these, Bitcoin Atom uses a hybrid
consensus model that combines Proof of Work (POW) and Proof of Stake (POS), two
different types of algorithms for reaching
consensus, or agreement, on whether or not a transaction is valid before it is added to the blockchain.
There are a variety of
different consensus algorithms out there, but two
models generally dominate the space: proof of work and proof of stake.
From a technical perspective, EOS is highly
different from Ethereum because of its
consensus model.