diff --git a/docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md b/docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..6aa5c050b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/docs/adrs/adr-018-fault-resolutions.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +--- +sidebar_position: 2 +title: ADR Template +--- +# ADR [018]: [Fault Resolutions (fraud votes)] + +## Changelog +* [date]: [changelog] + +## Status + + +Proposed + +## Context + +Currently, in _PSS_, consumer chains can be secured by a only subset of the provider validator set. + That makes them vulnerable to incorrect execution attacks. + These kind misbehaviour of that cannot be handled by the protocol and hence requires a way to submit evidence of such misbehaviour + to the Hub. + + The ADR proposes a fault resolutions solution that gives the ability to the victims of these attack to prove and slash + validators through a governance. + + + + from incorrect executions. Partial Set Security gives the option to consumer chains to be secured by only a subset of the provider validator set. + + + + +> This section contains all the context one needs to understand the current state, and why there is a problem. It should be as succinct as possible and introduce the high level idea behind the solution. + +## Decision + +> This section explains all of the details of the proposed solution, including implementation details. +It should also describe affects / corollary items that may need to be changed as a part of this. +If the proposed change will be large, please also indicate a way to do the change to maximize ease of review. +(e.g. the optimal split of things to do between separate PR's) + +## Consequences + +> This section describes the consequences, after applying the decision. All consequences should be summarized here, not just the "positive" ones. + +### Positive + +### Negative + +### Neutral + +## References + +> Are there any relevant PR comments, issues that led up to this, or articles referenced for why we made the given design choice? If so link them here! + +* [references]