Open TinyVege opened 7 months ago
See BFT Forensics
See BFT Forensics
I have read it. It only identifies the double vote misbehavior, can not solve the liveness vioaltion right?
My question is that operators3-4 don't send any protocol(validator duty) messages to the dvt cluster and discard the protocol messages of operators1-2. How to prove the operators3-4 are the faultys ?
Yes, BFT Forensics can't solve the protocol. On a theoretical point of view, any BFT can only guarantee its properties (agreement, termination, etc) if at maximum $f$ nodes are malicious.
We don't have BFT Forensics yet, but multiple strategies could be added, such as idleness, invalid messages and so on.
I'm also interested in evaluating the performance of operators in ssv (shown bolow)
https://docs.ssv.network/learn/performance
https://docs.ssv.network/learn/performance/statuses
Now assume, there are four operator1, operator2, operator3, operator4. '' implies the Byzantine. And operaotors1-4 only perform the validatorX. Operators1-3 do the protocol while the operator4 is offline --> The validatorX does not miss any duty.
⚠⚠⚠ So the result is that the performance and status of operator1-4 are the same : 100% and active Right ? 👀👀👀 @MatheusFranco99 @GalRogozinski
Your last question is best to be asked on our Discord server https://discord.com/invite/ssvnetworkofficial
this repo is used for discussing issues of the core protocol itself
ok ,thanks
for example, Distributed Validator A is handled by operator1,2,3,4. We assume operators1,2 are honest while operators 3-4 is malicious and pretend to be online, so how can the ssv identify exactly the malicous operators 3-4.