From e9e2a0c63fdffa1fe5798f1008aee38d0a4d8a22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Cason Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 17:20:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] PBTS: redundant not changes in algorithm removed --- .../pbts-algorithm_002_draft.md | 13 ++----------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/spec/consensus/proposer-based-timestamp/pbts-algorithm_002_draft.md b/spec/consensus/proposer-based-timestamp/pbts-algorithm_002_draft.md index b6556865a..1914af12f 100644 --- a/spec/consensus/proposer-based-timestamp/pbts-algorithm_002_draft.md +++ b/spec/consensus/proposer-based-timestamp/pbts-algorithm_002_draft.md @@ -113,23 +113,14 @@ upon ⟨PROPOSAL, h_p, round_p, v, −1⟩ from proposer(h_p, round_p) while ste } ``` -#### Rules at Lines 28 - 33 remain unchanged +#### All other rules remains unchanged -The rule on line 28 applies to values `v` proposed again in the current round because its proposer received `2f + 1 PREVOTE`s for `v` in a previous round `vr`. -This means that there was a round `r <= vr` in which `2f + 1` processes accepted `v` for the first time, and so sent `PREVOTE`s for `v`. -Which, in turn, means that these processes executed the line 22 of the algorithm, and therefore judged `v` as a `timely` proposal. - -In other words, we don't need to verify whether `v` is a timely proposal because at least `f + 1` processes judged `v` as `timely` in a previous round, -and because, since `v` was re-proposed as a `validValue` (line 16), `v.time` has not being updated from its original proposal. - -**All other rules remains unchanged.** +Notice, in particular, that the rule on line 28 for values re-proposed, and backed by `2f + 1`-equivalent voting power `PREVOTE` messages, is not affected by the changes. Back to [main document][main]. [main]: ./README.md -[algorithm_v1]: ./v1/pbts-algorithm_001_draft.md - [sysmodel]: ./pbts-sysmodel_002_draft.md [bfttime]: https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/blob/master/spec/consensus/bft-time.md