This received 5/5 vote and is funded @dungtran. Congrats! I will move this under “funded projects”.
Annie
This received 5/5 vote and is funded @dungtran. Congrats! I will move this under “funded projects”.
Annie
Update on May 8th, 2020
Work with @ruler regarding randomly assign nodes to shard
Discuss about possibility of applying “bounded cuckoo rule” http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~baruch/RESEARCH/Research_areas/Peer-to-Peer/2006_SPAA/virtual5.pdf
Life cycle of validator
Note: To avoid the join-leave attack (attacker would like to send its nodes into the same shards), unstake is executed only when it’s in the common pool.
Case 1. Fewer than 30 committee members
Case 2. 30-150 committee members
Case 3. Greater than 150 committee members
For example:
- 400-500% in waiting list, new staking amount = 1750 + 1750 = 3500PRV.
- 500-600% in waiting list, new staking amount = 3500 + 1750 = 5250PRV.
and so on.
Based on our analysis in the post on April 24th, the size of the waiting list is proportional to the security of the chain, but the earning of the validators is reduced. Hence to give credit for early adoption validators, increasing the staking amount for late one is reasonable.
We continue working on the problem of balancing shard committee size
Update on May 15th, 2020
Our weekly progress has been update in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19KChrg0B2LmfT_t-K8vovCG-mXUkAYG88j5FQsKPXT4/edit?usp=sharing
Achievement:
Next Research Problem:
You are doing a great job @hungngo ! Thank you for being one of the technical saviors of Incognito!
Update on May 22th, 2020
Achievement:
Notice:
Our weekly progress has been update in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19KChrg0B2LmfT_t-K8vovCG-mXUkAYG88j5FQsKPXT4/edit?usp=sharing
Dear everyone, we are moving to implementation phase, follow us on Dynamic committee size and dynamic sharding: implementation phase