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. -- Marcus Griep GPG Key ID: 0x070E3F2D —— https://torproj.xpdm.us Ακακια את.ψο´, 3°
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature