Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Oracles with two execution modes (Neo 3) #798

Closed
igormcoelho opened this issue Jun 5, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Oracles with two execution modes (Neo 3) #798

igormcoelho opened this issue Jun 5, 2019 · 4 comments
Labels
Discussion Initial issue state - proposed but not yet accepted

Comments

@igormcoelho
Copy link
Contributor

igormcoelho commented Jun 5, 2019 •
edited
Loading

I think we could have two executing modes for oracles: one which is "trusted"; and another one that is "verified by dbft".
One example, if we access some non-deterministic website such as https://www.random.org, every node would return a different result, correct?
So, if one wanted this kind of access, it would need to trust the result of the single node who proposed the block, since the others would not be able to validate the info. So, someone could ask for a transaction with url="https://random.org" and trusted=true.
However, if you access a static website it could be validated by dbft in a deterministic way, so perhaps one could send a transaction with url="https://statictest.org" and trusted=false.
One node can always be byzantine (but no the majority of them), so a trusted mode would be direct responsibility of contract designers.

What do you think?
@igormcoelho
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shargon @erikzhang

@shargon
Copy link
Member

shargon commented Jun 5, 2019

first we need to deal with untrusted situations, and then we can improve it

@igormcoelho
Copy link
Contributor Author

If we dont put the field now Shargon, we will not be able to improve it. untrusted will be very unsafe on general Shargon,hard to use it.

@erikzhang erikzhang added the Discussion Initial issue state - proposed but not yet accepted label Jun 10, 2019
@igormcoelho
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this to discuss on: #967

@igormcoelho igormcoelho mentioned this issue Jul 31, 2019
Closed
Thacryba pushed a commit to simplitech/neo that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2020
@ixje @Celia18305
Update for neo-cli 2.10.1 (neo-project#798)
895b778 
* update for neo-cli 2.10.1

* update 2.10.1 to latest version

update the folder name 2.10.1 to "latest-version" for keeping links working
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Discussion Initial issue state - proposed but not yet accepted
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@igormcoelho @shargon @erikzhang