Misc corrections #128
Merged
Misc corrections #128
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
davxy
commented
Oct 30, 2024
| @@ -30,13 +30,6 @@ @misc{cryptoeprint:2023/002 | |||
| url = {https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/002} | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| @misc{galassi2024compress, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dead reference. We switched from WS to TE (which has a 32 bytes encoding)
| @@ -32,6 +30,8 @@ \section{The Header}\label{sec:header} | |||
| P(\mathbf{H})_t < \mathbf{H}_t\ \wedge\ \mathbf{H}_t\cdot\mathsf{P} \leq \mathcal{T} | |||
| \end{equation} | |||
|
|
|||
| Blocks considered invalid by this rule may become valid as $\mathcal{T}$ advances. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moved closer to what is "this rule"
| @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ \subsection{Computation of Work Results}\label{sec:computeworkresult} | |||
| (\mathbb{P}, \N_\mathsf{C}) &\to \mathbb{W} \\ | |||
| (\wpX, c) &\mapsto \begin{cases} | |||
| \error &\when \mathbf{o} \not\in \Y \\ | |||
| \tup{\is{a}{\wpX_\wp¬authorizer}, \mathbf{o}, \is{x}{\wpX_\wp¬context}, s, \mathbf{l}, \mathbf{r}} \!\!\!\!\!&\otherwise | |||
| \tup{s, \is{x}{\wpX_\wp¬context}, c, \is{a}{\wpX_\wp¬authorizer}, \mathbf{o}, \mathbf{l}, \mathbf{r}} \!\!\!\!\!&\otherwise | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not a big deal, but I'd prefer if this tuple fields are listed with the same order as the work report (
| @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ \subsection{Computation of Work Results}\label{sec:computeworkresult} | |||
|
|
|||
| Once done, then imported segments must be reconstructed. This process may in fact be lazy as the Refine function makes no usage of the data until the \emph{import} host-call is made. Fetching generally implies that, for each imported segment, erasure-coded chunks are retrieved from enough unique validators (342, including the guarantor) and is described in more depth in appendix \ref{sec:erasurecoding}. (Since we specify systematic erasure-coding, its reconstruction is trivial in the case that the correct 342 validators are responsive.) Chunks must be fetched for both the data itself and for justification metadata which allows us to ensure that the data is correct. | |||
|
|
|||
| Validators, in their role as availability assurers, should index such chunks according to the index of the segments-tree whose reconstruction they facilitate. Since the data for segment chunks is so small at 12 bytes, fixed communications costs should be kept to a bare minimum. A good network protocol (out of scope at present) will allow guarantors to specify only the segments-tree root and index together with a Boolean to indicate whether the proof chunk need be supplied. Since we assume at least 341 other validators are online and benevolent, we can assume that the guarantor can compute $\mathbf{i}$ and $\mathbf{j}$ above with confidence, based on the general availability of data committed to with $\mathbf{s}^\clubsuit$, which is specified below. | |||
| Validators, in their role as availability assurers, should index such chunks according to the index of the segments-tree whose reconstruction they facilitate. Since the data for segment chunks is so small at 12 octets, fixed communications costs should be kept to a bare minimum. A good network protocol (out of scope at present) will allow guarantors to specify only the segments-tree root and index together with a Boolean to indicate whether the proof chunk need be supplied. Since we assume at least 341 other validators are online and benevolent, we can assume that the guarantor can compute $\importsegmentdata$ and $\justifysegmentdata$ above with confidence, based on the general availability of data committed to with $\mathbf{s}^\clubsuit$, which is specified below. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These variables were removed from the equations.
The results are now given by the referenced functions (eq.205)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.