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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fix typo in censorship rejection. #33

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix typo in censorship rejection. #33

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion papers/censorship_rejection/censorship_rejection.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ \section{Unforgiving Rejection}

\section{Incentives in the Uncoordinated Majority Model}

There are two ways to analyze the incentives of automated censorship rejection. The first is to look at automated rejection \textit{between miners only}, and explore its game-theoretic properties in a model where all actors have minority hashpower. The second is to assume that the attacker has a great majority of all valdators (and we will assume that they are proof of stake validators, with some specific incentive rules), and try to prove that any harmful attack on the network will, in expectation, cost the attacker a substantial amount of money.
There are two ways to analyze the incentives of automated censorship rejection. The first is to look at automated rejection \textit{between miners only}, and explore its game-theoretic properties in a model where all actors have minority hashpower. The second is to assume that the attacker has a great majority of all validators (and we will assume that they are proof of stake validators, with some specific incentive rules), and try to prove that any harmful attack on the network will, in expectation, cost the attacker a substantial amount of money.

Pure forgiving rejection can be viewed as a Nakamoto blockchain where some blocks are, from the point of view of some miners, explicitly prevented from being the head, but a block on top of such a block can always be created which allows that chain to be the head again.

Expand Down