Slashing: Panacea or Pandora's Box?
summary
Defines when slashing actually enforces correctness: two papers claim provable slashing for consistency and the first theory of accountable liveness. Key specifics: longest‑chain PoS cannot guarantee slashing, voting/quorum protocols (e.g., Alpenglow/Tendermint style) can; require long cooldowns (order of days) so attackers cannot withdraw before punishment; provable consistency slashing assumes attacker <67% stake; accountable liveliness needs honest majority (≥51%) plus a majority‑synchronous network. Ethereum uses on‑chain evidence; Solana prefers social/hard‑fork slashing.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (7)
- 0:00Introduction to consensus
- 1:07Correctness and slashing
- 3:14Approaches to slashing
- 6:14Defining accountability
- 8:10Consistency violation research
- 12:56Theory of accountable liveness
- 17:28Implications for Solana
related talks
16mA Future to Protocol Upgradability
41mSecurely Scaling Decentralized Governance
34mProvably Secure Blockchain Protocols and Applications to Secure Computation
52mBinding Blockchains Together with Accountability
12mThe Privacy Paradox: Balancing Transparency and Security in Blockchain
39mPrivacy-preserving Approaches to Transparency Logs
23mSecurely Scaling Decentralized Governance
16mExploring Attacks in the Modular Rollup World