Quote from: monsterer on March 03, 2016, 02:08:16 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 03, 2016, 01:43:43 PM

I already explained that cross-partition spending is possible (i.e. won't destroy the Nash equilibrium) only if validation of all partitions is done by all validators, which thus defeats the scaling advantages of making partitions (shards).

You even agreed with this upthread wherein you stated that validators can't decide which block to mine on if they don't validate all transactions in the block.

Edit: in case this isn't clear, let me remind readers and you that I had explained upthread that when validator that is responsible for validating only his own partition has to accept a spend from a partition he did not validate, then he has no way to know if that balance from the other partition was a lie or not. Thus he can't accept it, because his reward may be compromised if later it is shown that he accepted an invalid balance from a partition he did not validate.

I agree in general, but I wonder if there is more to this than it first seems. Yes it is true that merging two partitions into a block will need the block producer to validate both partitions to construct his new block, but that's not to say he necessarily has to keep validating both - if the partitions split apart again afterwards, for example that wouldn't be necessary.

You could formalise this such that an inter partition spend requires the source and destination partitions to merge for the transfer block only, thereby defining a partial order and only incurring an ephemeral increase in validation costs.

And then the partition that has accepted the transfer of gas from a partition that it did not validate now will have all its derivative transactions (and scripts) subject to reversal if later someone shows evidence that the balance was a lie.

You are writing nonsense (and you should know it which is why I am not being entirely polite ... please don't feed the damn trolls because you are not careful to think before typing).