Proposal 165: Easy migration for voting authority sets
tormaster at xpdm.us
Thu May 28 21:11:26 UTC 2009
I'm probably jumping into the middle of a debate I know nothing
about, but I think I have a clarification of note:
Paul Syverson wrote:
> I didn't miss the line. My point is that you won't ever get
> any honest authorities to drop the set including Bob, so you will
> never make it to 2 without changing something in the protocol.
> if either of those two authorities drop the list that includes Bob,
> they will not be honest (following the proposed protocol), because
> they are supposed to prefer the voting set for which the number of
> authorities that list themselves in it is higher not just the
> one that is moving in the direction they would like to go.
> It's the criterion for delisting a set that does not work.
Each authority would have multiple voting sets. When we want to
"drop Bob", we don't just drop Bob from the voting set. We create a
new voting set that doesn't contain Bob (VS-B) and publish that
along with the old voting set with Bob (VS+B). This doesn't need to
happen all at once; VS+B remains the consensus vote. However, once a
(super)majority (the level 'X') is reached, the authorities take
action again and begin removing VS+B. Once the numebr of authorities
in VS-B listing VS-B as one of their voting sets is greater than the
number of authorities in VS+B listing VS-B as on of their voting
sets, VS-B becomes the consensus vote.
GPG Key ID: 0x070E3F2D
Ακακια את.ψο´, 3°
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 793 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the tor-dev