RE: Alt Market Strong; Maximalism WRong

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Alt Market Strong; Maximalism WRong

edicted in LeoFinance • 5 years ago

The idea is that if you are doing this then you would presumably lose witness votes and not be able to make many more blocks.

The other witnesses would flag this block as a bad-block and reverse it I assume,
which again leads to a scenario of losing witness votes.

But again if this was the case that means the witness is breaking consensus.
So I'm still curious as to how this actually works.

Considering what happened when we booted up RCs I have to assume you're correct.
We all had negative RCs which would have been impossible with hard-enforced consensus.

5 years ago in LeoFinance by edicted

0.00 ARCHON

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

yabapmatt 5 years ago

The other witnesses would flag this block as a bad-block and reverse it

No, since RCs are not part of consensus, this would be a perfectly valid block and would be included on the blockchain just like any other block. It really wouldn't create much of a problem either, the block size is limited anyway so at worst some accounts would be able to get in some more transactions than they normally would have been able to in any blocks created by that witness - which is a function of the amount of witness votes they have.

0.00 ARCHON

2 votes

[-]

urun 5 years ago

interesting and good to know.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta

0.00 ARCHON

[-]

smooth 5 years ago (edited)

Witnesses can reject a consensus-valid block if they want, and it's still a soft fork. From a consensus perspective it looks the same as the situation where a block is received too late due to network delays and gets ignored.

The only thing witnesses can't do with a soft fork is accept a consensus-invalid block.

0.00 ARCHON