You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently we use the default setting from tendermint light client library (which is 1/3+1 valset overlap requirement). After speaking a bit about it with @cmwaters, there's no real "downside" to requiring 2/3rds overlap to verify a non-adjacent sync target. The only downside I could see is "more frequent" failure for non-adjacent verification --> bifurcated sync target verification --> and if that doesn't work, subjective re-initialisation. To know exactly how much more frequent, we need to see how much churn there is in the validator set within the weak subjectivity window.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
bifurcation should always work, if there is more than 1/3 change in a single block, it will eventually bifurcate to that adjacent block and then it should fallback to using adjacent verification
Currently we use the default setting from tendermint light client library (which is 1/3+1 valset overlap requirement). After speaking a bit about it with @cmwaters, there's no real "downside" to requiring 2/3rds overlap to verify a non-adjacent sync target. The only downside I could see is "more frequent" failure for non-adjacent verification --> bifurcated sync target verification --> and if that doesn't work, subjective re-initialisation. To know exactly how much more frequent, we need to see how much churn there is in the validator set within the weak subjectivity window.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: