-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 170
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
FIP-0086: Using max ticket #987
Conversation
Remove redundant clause
FIPS/fip-0086.md
Outdated
|
||
#### Valid messages and evidence | ||
|
||
The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 11, 22, 29, and 37) is defined below. | ||
The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 10, 22, 34, and 42, and 56) is defined below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 10, 22, 34, and 42, and 56) is defined below. | |
The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 10, 22, 34, and 42, 56 and 58) is defined below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks. Fixed.
Following #983, the pseudocode will require some conflict resolution. In the future, please include the FIP number in the title, otherwise this shared repo rapidly becomes confusing. |
d820b45
to
6db29a9
Compare
6db29a9
to
1b80412
Compare
1b80412
to
5940e73
Compare
5940e73
to
e03abda
Compare
Please rebase now #985 has merged. |
Done. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes look consistent.
@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ The receiver of a message only considers messages with valid signatures and disc | |||
|
|||
Two (or more) messages $m1$ and $m2$ are called _equivocating messages_ if $m1.Sender=m2.Sender \land m1.Instance=m2.Instance \land m1.Value ≠ m2.Value \land m1.MsgType=m2.MsgType \land \texttt(if applicable)\ m1.Round=m2.Round$. We call $m1.Sender$ an _equivocating sender_. | |||
|
|||
A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets. | |||
A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets. In fact, in the proposed version of GossiPBFT in this document, only one of the equivocating messages needs to be stored (thanks to evidences explicitly validating a message). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets. In fact, in the proposed version of GossiPBFT in this document, only one of the equivocating messages needs to be stored (thanks to evidences explicitly validating a message). | |
A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets, so that only one of the equivocating messages needs to be stored (thanks to the explicit evidence). |
Given this is a spec, I don't think we should refer to "the version proposed in this document" or things like that.
Update to using max ticket instead of min ticket and adjust by power. See here for the analogous in the implementation.
Also specify that there is no need to store equivocating messages.
Built upon the first round of audits #985 , so merge that other PR first.