Marius Poke
Marius Poke
1/3 of validators could timeout a channel through an eclipse attack. However, CCV clearly works under of the assumption that less than 1/3 are Byzantine.
> On the on the other hand, returning stake when chains got disconnected due to timeout is definitely unsafe. Why do you say that? Do you have a possible attack...
@jtremback @okwme Any views on this issue from a business perspective?
> > Why do you say that? Do you have a possible attack in mind? > > I guess we would like to ensure a property somewhat like: > >...
> The question of whether someone bothers to relay a packet is a distraction, IMO. We should assume that someone attempts to relay all packets*. We already do that through...
> In my view, validator operators should run relayers @josef-widder If every operator relays, we'll get 300 IBC packets per block, and only 2 are actually needed. And this is...
The current consensus is to support both options: Introduce a CCV parameter (i.e., `lockUnbondingOnTimeout`) that indicates whether the funds corresponding to the initiated unbonding operations are released in case of...
> it seems to me that making this a variable has just kicked the can down the road. We don't actually have consensus on which one is the "safer" option,...
@jtremback Do we still need this issue opened? Are you in agreement re. a solution?
@AdityaSripal I guess this is connected to https://github.com/cosmos/ibc/issues/534, right?