From 9a90174dc783d9b38aefe87cd07a5eb9bf69db10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: James Ray Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:18:14 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] partically [sic] synchonous [sic] network --- papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex b/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex index ab65dc7..d5e1e1a 100644 --- a/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex +++ b/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.tex @@ -521,7 +521,7 @@ FLP impossibility shows that it is impossible for consensus protocols like ours We have not yet made any synchrony assumptions of any kind, which is why the consensus protocols given here are asynchronously safe. Moreover, we have not said anything about when nodes \emph{should} send protocol messages. We have instead imposed relatively loose constraints on the protocol executions that nodes can take (they can receive messages and move to any state $\sigma' \supset \sigma$ from $\sigma$, as long as $\sigma'$ does not evidence too many Byzantine faults). -This absence of a specified strategy for how validators should make blocks means that we cannot at the moment give a liveness proof. However, we present see some experimental observations where estimate safety is accomplished in the following section. These protocol executions correspond to message arrival orders which are live, and we can therefore construct reliable strategies for achieving liveness as long as nodes can coordinate timeouts in order to (eventually) produce the desired ``shape'' of protocol messages. In a synchronous or partically synchonous network (i.e. one where there's a known or unknown bound on the message arrival time) timeout coordination is (at least eventually) possible. +This absence of a specified strategy for how validators should make blocks means that we cannot at the moment give a liveness proof. However, we present see some experimental observations where estimate safety is accomplished in the following section. These protocol executions correspond to message arrival orders which are live, and we can therefore construct reliable strategies for achieving liveness as long as nodes can coordinate timeouts in order to (eventually) produce the desired ``shape'' of protocol messages. In a synchronous or partially synchronous network (i.e. one where there's a known or unknown bound on the message arrival time) timeout coordination is (at least eventually) possible. Nonetheless, liveness considerations are considered largely out of scope, and should be treated in future work.