You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am unsure whether this is technically possible or safe, but hear me out.
I have an idea that consists of the following:
allow multiple nodes on the same network to connect to tmkms instance
generate signature once per each hrs and broadcast it every time it's requested, not signing it twice
multiple nodes broadcast the same signature, so it should not cause a double signing
if one node goes down (e.g. server crashed, resyncing etc.), then the other one would still broadcast the vote and validator won't skip blocks
it would only skip blocks if all of the nodes would die this way
I am in no way a Tendermint/CometBFT expert, but wonder if that's actually technically possible, and would it be safe (in theory, it sounds scary, but broadcasting the same vote twice should not trigger the double signature right?)
If that can be done, this might eliminate the specific node as a single point of failure, and the idea sounds really promising.
What do you guys think?
(If that's not technically possible, I suggest outlining it in the docs as this would be limited to the BFT level architecture then I guess)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am unsure whether this is technically possible or safe, but hear me out.
I have an idea that consists of the following:
I am in no way a Tendermint/CometBFT expert, but wonder if that's actually technically possible, and would it be safe (in theory, it sounds scary, but broadcasting the same vote twice should not trigger the double signature right?)
If that can be done, this might eliminate the specific node as a single point of failure, and the idea sounds really promising.
What do you guys think?
(If that's not technically possible, I suggest outlining it in the docs as this would be limited to the BFT level architecture then I guess)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: