Hi,
Thanks for the review.
> Maybe we also need to exclude USED_GUARDS from these two lists?
Good point, we should definitely do that.
> Not sure if this is part of this algorithm, or it's actually another helper
> algorithm that is called when a consensus arrives. I feel it might be cleaner
> i
Ola Bini writes:
> OK, with your feedback and thinking a bit more about it, here is a
> revision of the algorithm from yesterday. I think we are starting to
> get close so we will rip out the original simulation code and
> implement something that matches this now. Hopefully, the changes will
> b
Ola Bini writes:
> Hey,
>
> Maybe I misunderstood the hard part - I thought the problem was to
> choose the NUM longlived vanguards - since there are only ever NUM
> possible guards at each level, not to choose which one to use among
> the NUM guards. For the first, it felt like using 259 would w
