Skip to content
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

Consider strengthening security property #25

Open
dionyziz opened this issue Jun 27, 2017 · 0 comments
Open

Consider strengthening security property #25

dionyziz opened this issue Jun 27, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@dionyziz
Copy link
Owner

The security property only talks about what the verifier should output in case all honest full nodes agree. However, there is no requirement for the case where the miners disagree. Perhaps in case of disagreement the verifier should output undefined, i.e. the security definition should be amended with "and undefined otherwise."

However, this seems problematic as it may be impossible to achieve: If the honest miners do not agree about the predicate's value and the verifier speaks to a particular honest miner, they may extract a wrong value if the verifier is too eager to extract a value. On the other hand, if the verifier is cautious and waits for k blocks to bury the property, the honest miners may come to agreement before the verifier is satisfied.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant