[update] MD-117#119
Conversation
| @@ -1,23 +1,21 @@ | |||
| # MD-117: Ximen (Postconfirmations) Standards | |||
| # MD-117: Ximen Standards - safety-favoring Postconfirmation protocol | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would not include this in the title.
| # MD-117: Ximen Standards - safety-favoring Postconfirmation protocol | ||
|
|
||
| - **Description**: Provides a set of liveness and correctness requirements for Postconfirmations protocols. | ||
| - **Description**: Provides a set of requirements for a safety-favoring Postconfirmation protocol. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Though this a tradeoff I suggest, it's not that Ximen Standard protocols are favoring-safety necessarily. It's that they adopt partial synchronicity as a liveness requirement which MAY enable them to be safer.
I would also preserve the comment about these being correctness requirements. The desiderata list requirements for what constitutes a correct Ximen Protocol.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it's fine to have this. It may be slightly better to still think of it in terms of liveness first and say that these are partially synchronous protocols.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changed to
Provides a set of liveness and correctness requirements for Postconfirmation protocols that may be more safety-favoring than the Dongmen Standards.
also
preserve the comment about these being correctness requirements
re-added
| - **Quasi-synchronicity Attack**: A broader class of strategies in which an adversary manipulates message timing or node behavior to degrade the liveness or fairness of a consensus protocol, often without violating safety directly. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| - **Message Timing Attack**: A broader class of strategies in which an adversary manipulates message timing or node behavior to degrade the liveness or fairness of a consensus protocol, often without violating safety directly. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be referenced as a subclass of peer attacks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you provide a direct edit that i could accept? (or change it directly)
| We build on the example of [MD-116.A6.3](https://github.com/movementlabsxyz/MIP/tree/l-monninger/dongmen-standards/MD/md-n#a63-revotes-single-counting-with-propagation) to build a simple example of a protocol that satisfies the desiderata above. | ||
|
|
||
| We assume the protocol progresses through epochs, which we argue in this this example is the equivalent to a view change. If the epoch changes, new voters must vote on the oldest not decided height. Voters that have been voters in the previous epoch may not have to vote again. | ||
| We assume the protocol progresses through epochs, which we argue in this this example is similar to a view change. If the epoch changes, new voters must vote on the oldest not decided height. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can just use "view change" everywhere. It's the better term as we are trying to get more formal. We can also use "left" and "right" operations, if that helps distinguish between what are currently referred to as heights and rounds better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be nice to put this in the actual code tbh.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you explain what means left and right operations here
2 participants
Summary
MD-117