IBFT Consensus is inspired by Castro-Liskov 99 PBFT paper. Like PBFT, in IBFT a block is confirmed by passing through PREPREPARE, PREPARE and COMMIT phases and like PBFT, the validators moves through series of Rounds. If a block is not commited in a given ROUND, the validators move to the next ROUND and try to commit a block in that ROUND.
Both Hyperledger ...
A node that is not party to a private transaction can still mine (mint) the transaction. The minting node is selected by whichever consensus mechanism you have configured.
A simplified description of how private transactions work is as follows:
Node A sends the transaction to its local transaction manager and is
returned a hash to the transaction. The ...
there are three types of front running attacks; displacement, insertion, and suppression and they can be symmetric and asymmetric. front-running is pervasive issue tell the moment, however the impact of the issue will depend mostly on the DApp Design. That said as you already know ethereum uses gas price and nonce for transaction ordering, since the gas ...
The equation to solve that problem is the following:
The system can tolerate at most of F faulty nodes in a N validator nodes network, where N = 3F + 1
You can visit this link https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/650 in Consensus part to more information.
To reach consensus w IBFT in the presence of F s faulty nodes require N > 3F validator nodes, or N=3F+1. So to Nathan's original question, the total nodes are the former.
To progress in the 3-phase commit requires responses from 2F+1 nodes; so you need ~ 2/3 of the nodes to respond appropriately to reach consensus (7 out of 10 in the case F=3).