Increasing the Observability of Attestor Censorship
summary
Proposes a concrete gadget called R gadget that changes the inclusion rule: proposers must include high-fee transactions seen in recent uncle blocks, so persistent absence becomes evidence of attester censorship rather than network lag. Shows that even 5% honest proposers suffice to mitigate proposer censorship, while attester censorship is detected by widespread light-client sampling of headers and occasional block downloads. When many light nodes observe the same missing-inclusion pattern, the design enables social proof usable for slashing and bounds the system’s time-to-censorship.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (6)
- 0:00Importance of censorship
- 4:10Slashing and censorship
- 5:56Proposer vs. attester
- 9:31Observing uncle blocks
- 11:34The Rever gadget mechanism
- 13:56Light client monitoring
related talks
09mSeeing Beyond the Signatures: Federated Multisig O11y
30mHow do we know it's working? Proving adblockers production health
38mOff the Beaten Path: Moving Observability Focus from Your Service
10mLightning Talk: What Can eBPF Actually do for Modern-day Observability?
27mThe Full Picture: Visualizing Service "Fullness" To Rethink Saturation Prevention
23mTrustworthy Generative AI: The Role of Observability and Guardrails.
37mObservability-Driven Development
17mObservable...Yet Still Private? An Offensive Privacy Perspective on Observability