210 похожих чатов

During last week's coalition call, Guillaume of Origin/UX Network, who

is part of a team proposing to work on faster finality for EOSIO/Mandel, gave some big hints about possible future changes to consensus. In his presentation to the coalition, he mentioned that he has been working with Areg Hayrapetian (ENF Director of Engineering) on the proposal. Areg requested mathematical proofs to help assess safeness, liveness, and accountability; e.g., identifying double spending and impacts on general network latency. Why does Areg want these proofs?

1. "There could be slashing consequences."

2. "Opening the possibility for more block producers than 21."

"We built this proposal based on the assumption that we would remain a dPoS consensus mechanism, but we would increase the theoretical number of block producers up to 100."

Areg has a long history of discussing fundamental changes to EOS over the years in English speaking telegram groups, but many probably did not know who he was except other developers. It's encouraging to see that he is now at ENF and able to do more than just imagine the possibility of such future changes to EOS.

https://youtu.be/Yb2iQ7A1bfE?t=1274

1 ответов

10 просмотров
Joe-Louis Автор вопроса

And in today's Fireside chat, I mentioned that a crude understanding is that "More Block Producers, slower finality" - so taking it straight to 100 may not necessarily be the best number in practice. To which Nathan James replied, "That depends on the implementation of the finality which I think is very interesting. I'm not saying that's something that's going to happen specifically, but depending on the implementation of finality, it might not matter how many block producers there are to reach finality as long as there's something which moves towards it. It could be more than that or it could be less than that."

Похожие вопросы

Обсуждают сегодня

Карта сайта