FOGR identification

At present, the mainstream blockchain consensus mechanism has the following common problems: waste of computing power, centralization of computing power, and separation of consensus and computing. FOGR will give different functions and tasks through different identities of participants in network operation to avoid the above problems.

These identities are divided into: computing power provider (miner), authentication node, voter and gatekeeper.

Computing power provider: that is, miners provide computing power resource services for FOGR platform computing power, and DCPP compatible equipment can provide computing resources according to location information to perform the calculation of actual transactions, rather than mining, so as to avoid the waste of computing power.

Verification node: we need to run and maintain nodes to ensure the security and availability of the whole network of data. We need the role of verifier to be online at all times. At the same time, the verification node obtains the block reward through the Fog chain. Whether it can become the verifier is determined by the number of self mortgages and the number of pledges of the elector.

The FHPoS consensus algorithm will become some verifiers who do not have due diligence. If there are some errors with small consequences or can be judged as unintentional (such as short-term offline), a small part of the income will be deducted. However, if the same type of errors occur repeatedly, or intentional malicious acts such as multiple signatures that can be investigated and confirmed, there may be more serious punishment results, such as the deduction of all pledged deposits. (this part of funds can be roughly divided into destruction, rewarding other nodes with good performance, rewarding information providers, and serving as an ecological development fund) therefore, for the verifier, the requirements for hardware equipment will be higher, and it is necessary to ensure that the verifier client can run on trusted hardware with high availability and high bandwidth.

Electors: electors are a group with rights and interests. They entrust (vote) FOGR as a deposit to different verifiers, which is equivalent to electing some trusted verifiers and entrusting them to maintain the whole network on their own behalf. It should be noted that when the verifier receives punishment, the elector will also be rewarded or punished according to the voting proportion and the actual situation. Gatekeeper: the gatekeeper of the cross chain bridge can also be understood as the custodian. Keep the funds of the two party chain.

At present, the threshold signature of consensus group is very valuable to the network as a hybrid proof, and computing power providers need to submit their proof regularly. All computing providers have a score, which will decay over time by submitting certificates and other factors to the blockchain. In a certain period, the computing power providers with relatively high scores are selected according to the algorithm to enter the consensus group. The consensus group is responsible for decrypting transactions using threshold decryption, reaching an agreement on the effectiveness and order of transactions, packaging them into blocks and submitting them to the verifier. The verifier then checks whether the transactions contained in this block are available, signs and adds them to the blockchain.

Given that there are more than ½* N + 1 verifiers are honest, and FOGR networks can usually work safely and correctly. However, there are still a certain number of Byzantine verifiers that may still try to attack the network, such as through "clone attack". We encourage users to wait until they receive a consensus of more than * n + 1 different validators. In this way, less than * n Byzantine verifiers can be tolerated. There are 21 verifiers. If the blocking time is 5 seconds, the verification of * n + 1 different verifiers is required, which is about the time period of (⅔ * 21 + 1) * 5 = 75 seconds. Any critical application of Fog may need to wait for * n + 1 to ensure relatively secure finalization. However, in addition to such an arrangement, FOGR may also introduce slashing logic to punish the double signature or instability of Byzantine verifier. This slashing logic will expose malicious verifiers in a very short time and make the "attack" very difficult or uneconomical. Through this enhancement, ½* N + 1 or even fewer blocks as confirmation of most transactions.