block in GHOST
Regarding the above slide.
1. These two columns represent how a DAG chain is constructed in an individual namespace by two validators,right?
2. How does weight come from?
Casper paper defines weight as a map from validator names to positive real numbers. W : V -> R+
The weight 2 and 3 of the left and right validators, which factors would impact them? how exactly do they impact?
3. Casper paper defines GHOST messages as below.
The dotted arrows in the slide represent blocks' justifications; and solid arrows represent blocks' parents.
There are some blocks do not have dotted arrows, does that means its justification is the same as its parent?
Or justifications can be empty set?
4. What's the logic behind for a validator to peak certain previous block as some block's justifications?
5. I watched the video several times still dont quite understand how score is computed. 🤣
The block score is calculated from the latest(top) to the genesis block, right?
The latest(top) is assigned with the validator's weight, right?
Then for each previous block, its score is added by the other blocks who linked it as parent, right?
Then what's the role of justifications here? From the formula, it looks like justifications are a condition to compute the estimate. But I couldnt understand it and It seems redundant.
There is exactly one justification per validator.
Q6. Does this imply a validator has to be aware of other validators from the same namepsace? Or justification per the validator seen by the current validator?
The validator picks the latest ones they see.
Q7. What about conflicting blocks?
Imagine there are 4 validators in an individual namespace.
- There is a name a in tuplespace.
- a1 / a2 / a3 / a4 represent different status of this name in tuplespace.
- Each block packs the reduction logs and also the post state of tuplespace, e.g. a1->a2 represents status change of this name from a1 to a2.
Q7.1 Which block could be block#14's parents?
block#12 absolutely cannot be block#14's parent because its status change conflicts.
So I guess the parents of block#14 could be one of following cases. Right?
- block#11 and block#13
Q7.2 Which blocks are bock#14's justifications?
According to "exactly one justification per validator" rule, I assume the justifications of block#14 are block#11, block#12, block#13, block#04. Even block#12 obviously conflicts with block#14, it is still included in its justifications. Hence justifications can be considered as "a set of potential parent block". Please correct me if I am wrong.
Hence the estimator ε is a function whose input parameters are justifications, and its output is the "fork choice", namely the parents of the new block.
Back to the slide
A safe estimate means it will be included in furture estimate. That is to say, a fork choice will be respected by future fock choice. Right?
Q8. But here is the left validator producing unsafe estimate?
e.g. when it is producing estimate 2, estimate 1 is not included; when it is producing estimate 3, estimate 2 is not included.
They are orphan blocks. orphan blocks = unsafe estimate? Will the the left validator be punished or slashed?
As I understand, a validator seeing a block means the block is received and verified by the validator. Within a namespace bonded with n validators, each validator need to broadcast its block to n-1 validators. So the overall propagated block number would be O(n2). Right?
All blocks are not finalized when they are initially produced unless you have a single validator with more than majority of the stake. GHOST doesn't tell you which blocks are safe, the algorithm only tells you which block you are supposed to use as your parent block if you are going to create a new block.
Casper Safety Proof deducts estimate safety ⇒ consensus safety.
In my opinion
- consensus safety is a predictable state of a block among the RChain validators in a near-further time.
- estimate safety is the present state of an estimate produced by a validator
When most(< Byzantium fault tolerance) of validators produce safe estimates, block in DAG chain converges to a finality state in a near-further time. Thus, consensus safety is a conclusion of estimate safety.
So from my perspective, your explanation about estimate safety relies on the conclusion of estimate safety, and that sounds like a loop. 😉
I am trying to understand estimate safety in the context of RChain. I believe the estimate resulted from GHOST rule is safe. But still don't quite get it.
As Casper paper says
An estimate is said to be "safe" for a particular protocol sate if it is returned by the estimator on all future protocol states. In the blockchain consensus, a block is said to be "safe" for a particular protocol state if it is also in the fork choice for all future protocol states.
Still take the slide as an example.
- When left validator estimates on B, its fork choice is A
- When left validator estimates on D, its fork choice is C, which has C->A
- When left validator estimates on F, its fork choice is E, which has E->C->A
- When left validator estimates on H, its fork choice is F, which has F->E->C->A
Do I get it right? A safe estimate means the chosen fork is part of furture's chosen fork of the same validator ?