Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaekwon | Hacker News Reader

> control over the seed determining the next set of validators

That notion makes sense in something like PeerCoin or other preexisting PoS designs, but I don't see how that phrase applies to Tendermint. There is no "sampling" -- all validators must sign every block.

View on HN

I think you underemphasize this point. My Slasher algo ( https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proo... ) from way back then does use sampling; Tendermint does not, and thus gains a whole bunch of robustness properties at some cost to efficiency.

>all validators must sign every block.

Well now you're defining a new system. You can't expect me to explain the security of an undefined system, so I am sticking to the system defined in your paper which states that not all validators need to sign every block.

The whitepaper says that +2/3 of the entire validator set (in voting power) must sign every block. In the ideal scenario (in other words, in the stable state) every validator does sign every block.

Yes, it is pointless for me to argue about an undefined system. If you mean to say that 67% of the validator set must sign every block, then you shouldn't argue with the premise that 100% must sign every block.

It would be interesting to see a more well defined attack from you.

I've explained stake grinding attacks. Your response was redefining the system opening a new attack vector.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com