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.

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

Formal proofs requirement #54

Open
drequinox opened this issue Sep 11, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Formal proofs requirement #54

drequinox opened this issue Sep 11, 2019 · 2 comments
Labels
TODO after implementation Issue deemed relevant, but to be taken care of after the interop bft protocol

Comments

@drequinox
Copy link

Currently, in the requirements it is stated "MUST have a formal proof of correctness that we can show to regulators;"
It is not clear that what is the full scope of this formal proof. Are we looking at Formal spec and a model with automated checking or more traditional mathematical approach?

@shapeshed
Copy link

This requirement seems to be very specific to Financial Markets use cases. EEA clients could be used in environments where there is no regulator. Whilst I think this is a good requirement I feel MUST is too strong.

@kubasiemion
Copy link
Contributor

I also think this is too strong - the formal proofs start from assumptions and deal with idealizations. Very often it is side-channel issues (=from outside of the theoretical model) that spoil the show.

@kubasiemion kubasiemion added the TODO after implementation Issue deemed relevant, but to be taken care of after the interop bft protocol label Jun 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
TODO after implementation Issue deemed relevant, but to be taken care of after the interop bft protocol
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants