fix(tholos-v2): bound max_total_weight/max_position ratio to raise Sybil cost - #182
fix(tholos-v2): bound max_total_weight/max_position ratio to raise Sybil cost#182devkryssie wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…bil cost (drydocs#168) Enforces a maximum ratio of max_total_weight to max_position (MAX_TOTAL_WEIGHT_TO_POSITION_RATIO = 10) at initialize time, so a single actor must control at least 10 distinct positions to approach the plutocratic threshold, raising the capital cost of address splitting. - Adds Error::InvalidWeightRatio (= 37). - Adds MAX_TOTAL_WEIGHT_TO_POSITION_RATIO = 10 constant with doc comment. - Validates the ratio in initialize() after the max_position check. - Adds two tests: accept at the exact bound (10_000 / 1_000 = 10) and reject one unit above it (10_001 / 1_000). - Fixes test_register_exceeds_max_position_fails to pass (DEFAULT_BOND + 50) * 10 for max_total_weight so it satisfies the new ratio invariant. - Updates docs/src/CONTRACT_V2.md with the new invariant, the InvalidWeightRatio error, and an explicit residual plutocratic risk note. Closes drydocs#168
| .checked_mul(MAX_TOTAL_WEIGHT_TO_POSITION_RATIO) | ||
| .unwrap_or(i128::MAX); | ||
| if max_total_weight > max_allowed_total { | ||
| return Err(Error::InvalidWeightRatio); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This directly conflicts with docs/src/V2_BOND_SIZING.md's own published profile table, which isn't touched by this PR. Public testnet / low value (max_position 5x, max_total_weight 100x, ratio 20) and Higher-value mainnet candidate (3x, 200x, ratio 66.7) both now revert with InvalidWeightRatio if anyone actually follows that guidance. Only Private beta (10x, 50x, ratio 5) survives. Please update that table's max_position/max_total_weight columns for the other two profiles to fit within the new ratio 10 cap, or adjust the cap if 20x/66x should remain valid.
|
@devkryssie Three things.
|
|
@devkryssie Checking in, any progress on the findings above? Let us know if you're still working it or need to hand it off. |
|
@devkryssie Second check-in, still no word since the findings or the first ping. Please let us know if you're still working this or need to hand it off. |
2 participants
Closes #168
What
Enforces
max_total_weight <= max_position * MAX_TOTAL_WEIGHT_TO_POSITION_RATIO(ratio = 10) atinitializetime. A single actor must now control at least 10 distinct positions to approach the eligible-total threshold, raising the capital cost of Sybil-style address splitting without requiring an external identity system.Changes
contracts/tholos-v2/src/lib.rsError::InvalidWeightRatio = 37with a doc comment.MAX_TOTAL_WEIGHT_TO_POSITION_RATIO: i128 = 10constant afterMAX_SETTLEMENT_TOTAL_WEIGHT.initialize()immediately after the existingmax_positioncheck, usingchecked_mulso a pathologically largemax_positioncan't overflow the product.contracts/tholos-v2/src/test.rstest_initialize_accepts_max_total_weight_at_ratio_bound:max_total_weight = 10_000,max_position = 1_000(exactly at bound) — must succeed.test_initialize_rejects_max_total_weight_above_ratio_bound:max_total_weight = 10_001,max_position = 1_000(one over) — must returnInvalidWeightRatio.test_register_exceeds_max_position_fails: updatedmax_total_weightfromDEFAULT_MAX_TOTAL_WEIGHTto(DEFAULT_BOND + 50) * 10so it satisfies the new ratio invariant.docs/src/CONTRACT_V2.mdmax_total_weightfield description now documents the ratio bound.InvalidWeightRatioadded to the error table.get_policy: the ratio raises splitting cost but a coalition controlling >50% of eligible capital can still determine the result.Testing
cargo test -p tholos-v2— 112 passed, 0 failed.