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
\caption{The results of the shuffle security experiment showing the spread of nessecary shuffle need for the shuffle to be secure}%
74
-
\label{fig:shufflesecurityviolin}%
75
-
\end{figure*}
75
+
76
76
77
77
The results in \autoref{fig:shufflesecurityviolin} show that for all three $\alpha$ values, the spread of the necessary honest shuffles tightens the larger the shuffle size $\ell$ gets.
78
78
Like the results in \autoref{fig:shufflesecurity}, \autoref{fig:shufflesecurityviolin} also shows that the bigger a shuffle size $\ell$, the less honest shuffles on average are necessary to make the shuffle secure.
Some nodes contain multiple validators, and this means that during the shuffling phase, when selecting the 16384 possible proposers, there is a chance that a single node controls multiple of the chosen validators.
56
56
This is also possible during the selecting of the shufflers.
57
57
58
-
58
+
From the results we see that the mean starts higher and ends lower for the experiments with a higher $\alpha$.
59
+
One of the reasons for the could be the relationship between the number of adversarial tracked cups and the threshold necessary before the shuffle is secure.
60
+
Since the threshold is $2/(n-\alpha)$ the higher $\alpha$ is, the higher the threshold for the amount of water allowed in any cup.
61
+
Therefore, the higher $\alpha$ is, the less the water needs to be divided be the harder it is to get the initial 1 unit of water divided.
62
+
And opposite to this the lower $\alpha$ is, the more evenly the water needs to be divided, and therefore the harder it is to get the every cup below the lower threshold.
0 commit comments