-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Oracles] Consensus/Agreement #1273
Comments
The Oracle nodes are different from the consensus nodes? |
Yes |
Yes, the software (neo-cli) is the same, but the role is different. Like the current consensus nodes. |
Why they are different? How can I become an oracle node? What is the incentive to become an oracle node? |
In fact, I think that @erikzhang comment is the correct direction to go, 1. is the naive solution. For example, if someone wants to be an oracle and it is not a consensus node it can create a system, let's say Editted: |
@erikzhang Why do they have to be different? Well, there really is no technical need to do it, but I think it is good for the resilience of the network to have distributed roles, it is something we can talk about the pros and cons. We can discuss the choice and rewards in their threads, but as a summary, I think that if we have to design/solve the election of consensus nodes, why not use the same system to choose oracle nodes? @vncoelho maybe the idea of having official oracles and open oracles is a great idea to distribute the load, official oracles can have a higher price than open ones. |
Perhaps, no need for official oracles, @belane. What could we get from "official"? What is really official? There are open questions regarding who will play this role. |
Hi, just a community guy here, a few questions:
|
Thanks for question Indeed, Oracle election is indeed a more important issue.In the mechanism of Oracle, four parties will be involved:Users, public chain, Oracle nodes, data sources. Among them, the public chain, Oracle nodes, and data sources are not safe. If we represent their honesty with P1, P2, and P3 (0 <P <1), perhaps we can get a formula that is not so strict: But what we want now is a simple Oracle that can meet most needs |
@doubiliu , If there is no way to determine if an oracle node has malicious intent/motive (even if bound to a CN node), why should we trust them? Is it because existing CN's are running them so it's trust based on that? I guess I just need more clarification on this aspect. I don't 100% understand how the consensus comes into play with oracle nodes, especially if these oracle nodes are run by the same consensus nodes. Regards, |
Oracle nodes will be strongly bound to Neo's consensus nodes means each consensus node will operate an Oracle node independently.So it also can be understood that each consensus node is an Oracle node.Of course, the consensus node can also authorize a third party to operate, but it must be responsible for it. |
The mechanism can refer to: |
Open discussion. Two possible methods are currently being researched and evaluated, but any new proposal is welcome.
1. Approval Threshold
It defines how many Oracle nodes should sign at least to proceed moving the transaction to the verified pool.
Some cases might be contemplated to define the threshold:
Final formula TBD.
2. Second dBFT consensus between Oracle nodes to determine the validity of each Oracle transaction.
...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: