On Mar 2, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Sebastian Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Design: >> >> When the consensus is generated, the directory authorities ensure that >> a param is only included in the list of params if at least half of the >> total number of authorities votes for that param. The value chosen is >> the low-median of all the votes. We don't mandate that the authorities >> have to vote on exactly the same value for it to be included because >> some consensus parameters could be the result of active measurements >> that individual authorities make. > > This is possibly bikeshed, but I would suggest that instead of > requiring half of existing authorities to vote on a particular > parameter, we require 3 or more to vote on it. (As a degenerate case, > fall back to "at least half" if there are fewer than 6 authorities in > the clique.)
Hrm. I'm not too happy with this, unless we also include a way for a majority of authorities to prevent voting on that parameter altogether. Doing the design as presented above would then be simpler. > I think we don't want the number to be _less_ than 3, since 3 is the > smallest number of parties who can come up with a low-median that > isn't just the diktat of a single member (1 party), or as low as > either member wants it to be (2 parties). Yes, anything less than 3 is bad imo. Sebastian _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
