codex-storage/codex-research
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/codex-storage/codex-research.git synced 2025-01-09 18:26:07 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

rewording

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mark Spanbroek 2024-08-29 11:20:55 +02:00
parent 6b2d7a411f
commit c6fae1342a
1 changed files with 7 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
design/proof-network.md
View File

@ -114,10 +114,10 @@ Flows
### Successfull proof submission and validation ###
Provers monitor the on-chain marketplace to check in which periods they need to
provide a storage proof. When a proof is required in the current *period*, the
prover gathers public *inputs* for the slot, including the random challenge for
the current period and calculates a zero-knowledge storage *proof*. The prover
then broadcast `SubmitProof(slot id, period, inputs, proof)`:
provide a storage proof. When a prover sees that a proof is required for a slot
in the current *period*, it gathers public *inputs* for the slot, including the
random challenge and calculates a zero-knowledge storage *proof*. The prover
then broadcasts `SubmitProof(slot id, period, inputs, proof)`:
validator
SubmitProof
@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ Consensus
---------
The core of our design consists of the fact that correct validators either sign
off on a `ProofSigned` message -or- on a `MissedSigned` message, but never on
off on a `ProofSigned` message or on a `MissedSigned` message, but never on
both. We then use a light form of consensus by combining signatures of
validators representing > 2/3 stake. Because we assume that there are < 1/3
stake byzantine validators, it is always possible to either get enough
@ -241,5 +241,5 @@ missed proof.
We argue that is not a problematic scenario for our storage proof network. The
prover did provide a correct proof to at least one correct validator, meaning
that is still storing the data that it is supposed to. Not being able to slash
it in this case is therefore ok.
that it is still storing the data that it is supposed to. Not being able to
slash the prover in this case is therefore ok.