๊ฐ€์ž… ํ›„ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋งํฌ๋ฅผ ๊ณต์œ ํ•˜๋ฉด ๋™์˜์ƒ ์žฌ์ƒ ๋ฐ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋ณด์ƒ์„ ๋ฐ›์„ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

MARKHOR ๐Ÿ
@0_0Markhor
๊ฐ€์ž… September 2017
0 ํŒ”๋กœ์ž‰ ์ค‘    0 ํŒฌ
Always wondered why a random arbitrator would ever bother being honest They are strangers picked at random with nothing tying them to either side Turns out the design leans on a simple trick Each of the three votes sealed first so nobody can see what the others picked Then anyone who ends up against the final majority gets slashed That leaves only one safe move which is voting on what the verification re run actually shows Because that is the exact thing the other two are looking at as well @termix_ai this is the kind of incentive design that holds up better the more you poke at it Sometimes the strongest security feature is making honesty the cheapest option
๋” ๋ณด๊ธฐ