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

FIP-0086: Using max ticket #987

Merged
merged 22 commits into from May 3, 2024

Conversation

ranchalp
Copy link
Contributor

@ranchalp ranchalp commented Apr 11, 2024

Update to using max ticket instead of min ticket and adjust by power. See here for the analogous in the implementation.

Also specify that there is no need to store equivocating messages.

Built upon the first round of audits #985 , so merge that other PR first.

FIPS/fip-0086.md Outdated

#### Valid messages and evidence

The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 11, 22, 29, and 37) is defined below.
The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 10, 22, 34, and 42, and 56) is defined below.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 10, 22, 34, and 42, and 56) is defined below.
The $\texttt{Valid}()$ predicate (referred to in lines 10, 22, 34, and 42, 56 and 58) is defined below.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks. Fixed.

@jsoares jsoares changed the title Using max ticket FIP-0086: Using max ticket Apr 11, 2024
@jsoares
Copy link
Member

jsoares commented Apr 11, 2024

Following #983, the pseudocode will require some conflict resolution.

In the future, please include the FIP number in the title, otherwise this shared repo rapidly becomes confusing.

@anorth
Copy link
Member

anorth commented Apr 16, 2024

Please rebase now #985 has merged.

@ranchalp
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done.

@ranchalp
Copy link
Contributor Author

@anorth @jsoares could we get this merged?

Copy link
Member

@jsoares jsoares left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes look consistent.

@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ The receiver of a message only considers messages with valid signatures and disc

Two (or more) messages $m1$ and $m2$ are called _equivocating messages_ if $m1.Sender=m2.Sender \land m1.Instance=m2.Instance \land m1.Value ≠ m2.Value \land m1.MsgType=m2.MsgType \land \texttt(if applicable)\ m1.Round=m2.Round$. We call $m1.Sender$ an _equivocating sender_.

A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets.
A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets. In fact, in the proposed version of GossiPBFT in this document, only one of the equivocating messages needs to be stored (thanks to evidences explicitly validating a message).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets. In fact, in the proposed version of GossiPBFT in this document, only one of the equivocating messages needs to be stored (thanks to evidences explicitly validating a message).
A set of messages $M$ that does not contain equivocating messages is called _clean_. Participants discard all equivocating messages when forming clean sets, so that only one of the equivocating messages needs to be stored (thanks to the explicit evidence).

Given this is a spec, I don't think we should refer to "the version proposed in this document" or things like that.

@jsoares jsoares merged commit c50d34f into filecoin-project:master May 3, 2024
1 check passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants