Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Jun 20 16:01
    gitcoinbot commented #110
  • Jun 20 15:13
    gitcoinbot commented #110
  • Jun 20 15:13
    gitcoinbot commented #110
  • Jun 19 14:58
    mkeen commented #110
  • Jun 19 12:34
    hrishikeshio commented #110
  • Jun 19 01:47
    mkeen commented #110
  • Jun 10 09:19
    kuhnchris commented #110
  • Jun 10 01:12
    mkeen commented #110
  • Mar 28 02:21
    ChihChengLiang closed #176
  • Mar 28 02:21
    ChihChengLiang commented #176
  • Mar 28 02:20

    ChihChengLiang on master

    deprecate repo Merge pull request #177 from Ch… (compare)

  • Mar 28 02:20
    ChihChengLiang closed #177
  • Mar 28 02:19
    ChihChengLiang opened #177
  • Mar 10 08:27
    gitcoinbot commented #152
  • Jan 24 11:20
    hrishikeshio opened #176
  • Jan 24 07:46
    kuhnchris commented #110
  • Jan 24 07:40
    hrishikeshio commented #110
  • Jan 21 22:10
    kuhnchris commented #110
  • Aug 22 2018 21:01
    vs77bb commented #152
  • Aug 22 2018 21:01
    gitcoinbot commented #152
wanderingbort
@wanderingbort
Ah, so finalized requires a supermajority vote where h(t) - h(s) == 1?
Danny Ryan
@djrtwo
yes — from the casper paper "A checkpoint c is called finalized if it is justified and there is a supermajority link c → c′ where c′ is a direct child of c."
wanderingbort
@wanderingbort
yes, thats what I'm reading. I admit it is there. As that becomes a very important quality of the rest of the paper, if I may suggest, giving that link a proper name and defining it more explicitly may help avoid people like me in the future looking dumb :)
Danny Ryan
@djrtwo

You’re right. This is a common source of confusion and could be made clearer in the paper. Even pointing out that it is a common source of confusion and should be noted!

and you don’t “look dumb”. there’s a lot going on in the paper and you clearly a groking it. Glad you came here to ask

wanderingbort
@wanderingbort
Ok, so given the slashing conditions. Lets say all validators reveal their votes simultaneously. If finality must proceed by exactly 1, a reveal of 50/50 split of votes for Root -> C'1 and Root -> C"2 put the protocol in a state where no finality can proceed without an altruistic slash. Which means that proper game theory is to wait to establish a higher justified checkpoint as guidance. However, as voting for a justified checkpoint at any height puts you at risk of not being able to vote for the finality of that height (lest you violate the h(t1) == h(t2) slashing condition) you also cannot really vote in the blind there. It seems like being the first to reveal is far riskier than being the last to reveal and I am trying to figure out the mitigation for that so that game theory doesn't lead stake to stop casting votes out of fear or being put into a position where they must resign or be slashed.
the leap-frogging votes was what I thought was the path out of that pickle. But it was obviously not (and had other problems)
wanderingbort
@wanderingbort
actually, now I'm really confused. Even a vote for a link whose h(t) - h(s) > 1 means you have to slash yourself to vote for the link that can be used for finality because that would be a different link with h(t) - h(s) == 1 but h(t) is the same between these votes which is a slash. I must be off the right path so, I'm going to hunker down, light a campfire and wait for help haha
Oh, crap. Ok. its that finality is not necessarily built on finality. Finality can skip several blocks as it is built on justified links with a specific form of link after it.
I think I'm square now.
wanderingbort
@wanderingbort
@djrtwo thanks for the insights!
Danny Ryan
@djrtwo
Hi! havent had a chance to look through your comments. Glad to help! Holler if you have other questions
Eth-Gitter-Bridge
@Eth-Gitter-Bridge
<nagydani> Hi,
Maybe, it is worth posting it here as well. After pestering @Hsiao-Wei Wang (hwwhww) with stupid questions to fill in the gaps in my understanding how Serenity was going to get started, I decided to write it all up so that a) I do not forget b) others might have an easier time figuring it out. Feedback of any kind, very much including criticism is most welcome:
https://medium.com/@daniel_20027/ethereum-serenity-for-dummies-d21dce9c0487
Nico Vergauwen
@kyriediculous
Cool, wil definitely have a read!
Liang ZOU
@liangdzou
Is “Casper the Friendly Ghost” started to implement? Where is the code?
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
Liang ZOU
@liangdzou
thanks :-)
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
@liangdzou Another more recent piece of code is also available, which can be found here https://github.com/cbc-casper
Mamy Ratsimbazafy
@mratsim
FFG != CBC
@liangdzou you can refer to this for more casper resources: https://github.com/status-im/athenaeum/blob/master/ethereum_research_records.json#L265-L323
argh Friendly Ghost != FFG :/ so confused by the names
Liang ZOU
@liangdzou
@nicksavers @mratsim thx for your kind help :-)
daq1130
@daq1130
Hi! I'm quite new to Casper and i'm doing some FFG research now. May I ask is there a way for me to customise my casper contract if I use Harmony docker to run a testnet? let's say, I want to change the transaction rate or block percentage. Because so far from what I ran i realise a lot of things are pre-defined.
Thank you very much
flipchan
@flipchan
was an update recently pushed to rinkeby testnet? my solidity code doesnt work the way it use to 2 weeks ago
Eth-Gitter-Bridge
@Eth-Gitter-Bridge
<vbuterin> Sorry which Casper contract are you trying to run?
<vbuterin> Are you running the pyethereum-based code from last year?
<vbuterin> If so that is outdated and no longer applies
<vbuterin> I recommend waiting 1-2 months then trying to run nodes from prysmatic, lighthouse and co
Carl Park
@4000D
image.png
Hi guys. I wonder why the red box (evil validator is 1/3 ~ 1/2 under no 51% attack on pow) is fully safe. Isn't the box should be "Liveness failure"? It will be very helpful if you guys give any reference about it...
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
Are there any article's about possibly proving stake in PoS by using zero knowledge proofs? That way the particular stake doesn't get tainted.
Alex Stokes
@ralexstokes
@nicksavers what do you mean by 'tainted'?
i don't have all the details but you could imagine doing some kind of range proof (a la Bulletproofs) against the bonded stake.... however for consensus safety you probably want to be able to track every behavior down to the wei and removing that knowledge could be dicey
  • that is, the entire pool of bonded stakes, not just some individual validator's stake
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
@ralexstokes what I mean is that 'stake' can be held responsible for including transactions from sanctioned addresses making it basically impossible to sell at a regulated exchange afterward.
Any signature (tied to stake) for a block including one of these transactions.. or a block building on top of a block that contains an 'illegal' transaction could be used as proof that the stake was used for nefarious activities.
Alex Stokes
@ralexstokes
ah gotcha
yeah... defo something to think about
you have to balance accountability w/ zero-knowledge propety
*property
Ryuya Nakamura
@nrryuya

@4000D

Hi guys. I wonder why the red box (evil validator is 1/3 ~ 1/2 under no 51% attack on pow) is fully safe. Isn't the box should be "Liveness failure"? It will be very helpful if you guys give any reference about it…

What is the source of the figure?

Ryuya Nakamura
@nrryuya
ah thanks
falcolombobby
@falcolombobby
Hi all
what prevents somebody running Casper
from not running a fullnode
and just sniffing and replaying other people's votes
to collect rewrds
Nick Savers
@nicksavers
That's perfectly fine, but you would lose the opportunity to vote on the history you care about. If you don't verify, you could be voting for invalid transactions that are not in your own benefit.
falcolombobby
@falcolombobby
hmmm I see, so it depends on how you value the cost of running a node vs peace of mind xD