Binance, Quorum and Final votes

It is of my knowledge that if a single node reaches 33%+ of the online voting weight and decides to stop voting but keeps the connection open to other peers that the network would not confirm blocks anyone.
I also understand that the consensus was modified to 67% to prevent forks being confirmed due to desynchronized nodes during the clearing of the spam backlog.
As of now Binance has ~29% of the total voting weight.

Having final votes enabled prevents the network from assuming consensus on forks based on net topography already.

I propose we release 22.2 with 50%+1 of the online voting weight to reach consensus again and keep final votes enabled unconditionally. The lower consensus with final votes flipping remote or badly peered nodes would make the network faster without sacrificing security but also prevent a possible attack from big players like Binance.

2 Likes

IMO, fear that Binance is evil is overblown and moving closer to a 50% vote weakens the network up to exploitation in other ways.

Binance can already more-or-less kill Nano by exit scamming. Both exit scamming and attacking Nano would kill their reputation, so vote-forking Nano is just a less profitable alternative to exit scamming it.

We're at their mercy, like it or not, and it's due to the users of the coin. The users of the coin don't care enough about decentralization to move their coins off of Binance, and so there's nothing that can be done if Binance goes rogue in one way or another.

Better to leave it as is for now. It's a temporary "solution", but not worth it to do anything else.

3 Likes

Hi. I assumed the same for a long time, but recently I've read a piece on the game theory of DPoS and PoS by Vitalik Buterin. ORV is not subject to the most vulnerabilities DPoS present (user bribery, political splits) due to validators not being incentivized, at least in a short run. However, in the long run, it IS subject to the same vulnerabilities - say, if powerful political actors want to censor some non-compliant wallets, it is entirely possible that some subset of validators stops voting on these. This already was happening in Bitcoin (and I believe will become more and more rampant), and it is far easier to bribe few non-incentivized nodes.

So, prevention of attacks on liveness is definitely important: I'm ok with Binance rugging everyone and crashing the price, it can be compensated and forked, and binance dominance is supposed to go down, I'm not ok with the fact that in a long run censorship-resistance will be at mercy of a very few actors. Say, I'm from some country that ends up under US sanctions, and validators from US are nicely asked by the government to not allow transactions associated with addresses tied to this country.

3 Likes