Closed Ivshti closed 4 years ago
the best solution here would be to restrict this stack to 2 validators only
higher number of validators would require a pBFT process to ensure this can't happen
@Ivshti Since the current design proposition is a validator set that contains a publisher, an arbiter and an advertiser. Wouldn't this be an issue?
@samparsky a few parts of adex-protocol say that the minimal setup is 2 validators; this reference implementation will only support this case initially
the arbitor is not that important with the notion of health, as underreporting will be punished by not delivering impressions anymore
the arbitor has advantages (described in https://github.com/adexnetwork/adex-protocol#validator-consensus) but for now 2 validators is the easiest
Closing sine it's just now part of the design to strictly run with 2 validators. It's simpler, has less failure cases and clear game theory.
The issue is as follows:
Let's say that:
S(n)
S(m)
S(m+1)
generated by validator Qm
is significantly higher thann
:m>n
S(n)
toS(m+1)
; the correct thing to do is compareS(m)
toS(m+1)
; that way, we allow Q to trick N into signing a malicious state transition where the balance has been reduced compared toS(m)
but is still higher compared toS(n)
, making it a valid state transition from the point of view of Nin other words: