Jump to content

Question about the NegativeUNL amendment.


A01TYAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to my understanding, If the amendment gets activated it will reduce the required quorum to 60% of the validators in the UNL and will better protect the network from halting.

Does this also reduce the overlap required in the UNL of the validators?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, A01TYAD said:

According to my understanding, If the amendment gets activated it will reduce the required quorum to 60% of the validators in the UNL and will better protect the network from halting.

That's my understanding - but be aware that it only allows 60% quorum when the x% missing are on the negative UNL list. You can't just go for 60% and ignore more than you used to. (if 20% of my validators go offline, then 80% of my remaining 80% is 64% of the original, so if I get the 64% agreement, I say 'ok', once it drops much lower than than, then I will hit the 60% threshold and can't declare consensus. 

5 hours ago, A01TYAD said:

Does this also reduce the overlap required in the UNL of the validators?

Each validator has his own UNL (in theory) and if 20% of mine are known to be down, it does not affect anything in your UNL list - you might have the same 20% down, or a different bunch and the overlap isn't a thing that is enforced as such. The overlap is more of an emergent property than a rule - if everyone chose random UNLs then the overlap might not be good between some and they risk a fork, but when there is some level such as 80% overlap, then the probability of a fork happening is very low. The phrase "overlap required" - means that to 'prove' consensus can be reached without forking, one needs more than that, but things can still work with less (at least in the absence of byzantine nodes). So it doesn't directly affect the overlap requirements - however, if we have 90% overlap and 20% of my nodes go down and they happen to be the same ones you have got, then our overlap drops and we have a higher probability of forking (if someone is misbehaving on the network).

(Someone please correct me if I have misrepresented the state).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.