Circular auditing

So, in order to check that a node is misbehaving, surely other nodes have to audit it to some extent. I haven’t looked much into how exactly this works. The information mostly seems to be scattered around various dev updates.

But, if that auditing is happening, who ensures that the nodes are auditing each other correctly? Who audits the auditors, and who audits the audit auditors?

If a node is meant to do some kind of auditing task, then they need to feel supervised in some way, otherwise a fork whose performance isn’t burdened by that auditing task will become popular.

One idea I had, which probably wouldn’t translate well to the network, is to have 3 flavours of node (red, green, blue), and make it so that red nodes aren’t aware of green nodes, but are aware of blue nodes and have to audit half of everything blue nodes do, including blue’s auditing tasks. Then the same would be true for green, blue, red; and blue, red, green.

Also, I think I read somewhere that misbehaviour would result in a node age penalty, setting back a node’s progress. I’m wondering why this isn’t simplified to resetting the node age to 0 rather than just decreasing it a bit.

Elders will carry out this kind of check.

Elders audit both Adults and each other by checking that they agree. If one Elder comes up with different results to the majority of can be penalised by a majority vote of the others.


What happens if one of the others doesn’t vote for the subversive elder to be penalised?

1 Like

It’s a majority vote, any Elder that doesn’t vote with the majority risks punishment in a subsequent vote.


Ah, neat! Thanks