Hello all. I was wondering if Algo is built to withstand the following hypothethical attack: a continuing attack.
When I saw that Algorand works with random committees, that idea really clicked for me. It reminds me of how randomised, blind tests are used in scientific trials to accurately get an impression of the general population. This is especially powerful in a situation where the question asked (what transactions took place?) is not very complex, and the system works if everyone is simply honest.
HOWEVER I must say that I have one misgiving about random trials. It would seem that, if a randomized trial takes place long enough, eventually you will have a committee with a supermajority of dishonest agents if they are mine and I have them be dishonest EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. The Algo security presentation doesn’t really discuss this scenario.
Imagine I hold 20% of all stake. I set up 700/1500 accounts or something along those numbers. Just a large number that is bigger than what I need to overrule a committee. The chance that my bad accounts will ‘rule’ a committee one round is exceedingly small. BUT if I set them to acting dishonestly EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. (like saying 1,000,000,000,000 ALGO should really be in my account), shouldn’t I be able, by simple law of chance, to just have to have committee majority ONE TIME to make this amount of ALGO appear in my account? Like what is the amount of havoc I can cause, or gain to win, from just winning one round?
If this is truly a problem, the solutions I could come up with is a combination of bonding/slashing and multiple rounds, where a committee is formed randomly say, 6 times, and backchecks the previous conclusions. Majority of checks is final. That would increase security massively. With bonding/slashing, I could perform my continous attack theoretically, but lose massive amounts of money by being punished again, and again, and again…