You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The wiki states the following in the Shards section:
'These properties help RenVM to resist attacks made by irrational adversaries (adversaries that do not care about profiting from an attack). But, it also helps RenVM to resist attacks from rational adversaries during periods where an attack may be temporarily profitable. Regardless, RenVM is always able to restore its one-to-one peg in the unlikely event that an attack succeeds.'
'These properties' refers to randomly suffling nodes into shards, having shards of at least 100 nodes and nodes using the RZL MPC algorithm.
I made the section that I think is wrong bold; I think that it should maybe state that 'it helps to make attacks unprofitable to ensure that no rational adversary will ever attack the network' or something of the sort. I think it's wrong because, if there ever would be an oppurtunity to attack with profit, we should assume that the attack will occur, right?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The wiki states the following in the Shards section:
'These properties help RenVM to resist attacks made by irrational adversaries (adversaries that do not care about profiting from an attack). But, it also helps RenVM to resist attacks from rational adversaries during periods where an attack may be temporarily profitable. Regardless, RenVM is always able to restore its one-to-one peg in the unlikely event that an attack succeeds.'
'These properties' refers to randomly suffling nodes into shards, having shards of at least 100 nodes and nodes using the RZL MPC algorithm.
I made the section that I think is wrong bold; I think that it should maybe state that 'it helps to make attacks unprofitable to ensure that no rational adversary will ever attack the network' or something of the sort. I think it's wrong because, if there ever would be an oppurtunity to attack with profit, we should assume that the attack will occur, right?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: