From 215b51e2aef38b08d8b9ccec39b24b337c29bb71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daira Emma Hopwood Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:46:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Clarifications from code review. Co-authored-by: Nate Wilcox Signed-off-by: Daira Emma Hopwood --- src/design/crosslink/construction.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/design/crosslink/construction.md b/src/design/crosslink/construction.md index 7618a6c..8c54117 100644 --- a/src/design/crosslink/construction.md +++ b/src/design/crosslink/construction.md @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ A Crosslink node must participate in both $\Pi A player’s view in $\Pi_{\mathrm{*bft}}$ includes a set of $\mathrm{*}$bft‑block chains each rooted at a fixed genesis $\mathrm{*}$bft‑block $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{*bft}}$. There is a $\mathrm{*}$bft‑block‑validity rule (specified below), which depends only on the content of the block and its ancestors. A non‑genesis block can only be $\mathrm{*}$bft‑block‑valid if its parent is $\mathrm{*}$bft‑block‑valid. A $\mathrm{*}$bft‑valid‑chain is a chain of $\mathrm{*}$bft‑block‑valid blocks. -Execution proceeds in a sequence of epochs. In each epoch, a $\mathrm{*}$bft‑proposal may be made. +Execution proceeds in a sequence of epochs. In each epoch, an honest proposer for that epoch may make a $\mathrm{*}$bft‑proposal. A $\mathrm{*}$bft‑proposal refers to a parent $\mathrm{*}$bft‑block, and specifies the proposal’s epoch. The content of a proposal is signed by the proposer using a strongly unforgeable signature scheme. We consider the proposal to include this signature. There is a $\mathrm{*}$bft‑proposal‑validity rule, depending only on the content of the proposal and its parent block, and the validity of the proposer’s signature. @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ Using knowledge of ballots cast for a $\mathrm A voting unit is cast non‑honestly for an epoch’s proposal iff: * it is cast other than by the holder of the unit (due to key compromise or any flaw in the voting protocol, for example); or -* it is double‑cast (i.e. there are two ballots casting it for distinct proposals); or +* it is double‑cast (i.e. there are at least two ballots casting it for distinct proposals); or * the holder of the unit following the conditions for honest voting in $\Pi_{\mathrm{*bft}}$, according to its view, should not have cast that vote. ```admonish success "Definition: One‑third bound on non‑honest voting"