4 ms·
> control over the seed determining the next set of validators That notion makes sense in something like PeerCoin or other preexisting PoS designs, but I don't
by jaekwon 12y ago
> control over the seed determining the next set of validators
That notion makes sense in something like PeerCoin or other preexisting PoS designs, but I don't see how that phrase applies to Tendermint. There is no "sampling" -- all validators must sign every block.
- vbuterin 12y agoI think you underemphasize this point. My Slasher algo ( https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proo... ) from way back then does use sampling; Tendermint does not, and thus gains a whole bunch of robustness properties at some cost to efficiency.
- lappa 12y ago>all validators must sign every block. Well now you're defining a new system. You can't expect me to explain the security of an undefined system, so I am sticking to the system defined in your paper which states that not all validators need to sign every block.
- jaekwon 12y agoThe whitepaper says that +2/3 of the entire validator set (in voting power) must sign every block. In the ideal scenario (in other words, in the stable state) every validator does sign every block.
- lappa 12y agoYes, it is pointless for me to argue about an undefined system. If you mean to say that 67% of the validator set must sign every block, then you shouldn't argue with the premise that 100% must sign every block.