22 Feb
2019
22 Feb
'19
4:10 p.m.
Hi all, On 22/02/2019 12:29, Nick Mathewson wrote:
I had to read this paragraph twice to understand it. The way it's written, it sounds like we're doing a bad thing. (Until I read the "security" section at the end of the proposal.)
Can you mention the positive aspects in the Abstract?
Rewritten this.
Instead I'd go with a phrasing like, "Authorities will continue computing consensus package lines in the consensus if the consensus method is between 19 and (N-1). If the consensus method is N or later, they omit these lines."
This sounds good too. Updated draft is attached. Thanks, Iain.