fix typo and amend wording

paritytech · Jun 30, 2020 · 81da4d3 · 81da4d3
1 parent 5aa8576
commit 81da4d3
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
diff --git a/roadmap/implementors-guide/src/node/backing/statement-distribution.md b/roadmap/implementors-guide/src/node/backing/statement-distribution.md
@@ -70,4 +70,4 @@ First: We may be aware of two equivocated `Seconded` statements issued by a vali
 The fix is to track, per-peer, the hashes of up to 4 candidates per validator (per relay-parent) that the peer is aware of. It is 4 because we may send them 2 and they may send us 2 different ones. We track the data that they are aware of as the union of things we have sent them and things they have sent us. If we receive a 1st or 2nd `Seconded` statement from a peer, we note it in the peer's known candidates even if we do disregard the data locally. And then, upon receipt of any data dependent on that statement, we do not reduce that peer's standing in our eyes, as the data was not undesired.
 
 There is another caveat to the fix: we don't want to allow the peer to flood us because it has set things up in a way that it knows we will drop all of its traffic.
-We also track how many statements we have received per peer, per candidate, and per chain-head. This is any statement concerning a particular statement: `Seconded`, `Valid`, or `Invalid. If we ever receive a statement from a peer which would push any of these counters beyond twice the amount of validators at the chain-head, we begin to lower the peer's standing and eventually disconnect. This bound is a massive overestimate and could be reduced to twice the number of validators in the corresponding validator group. It is worth noting that the goal at the time of writing is to ensure any finite bound on the amount of stored data, as any equivocation results in a large slash.
+We also track how many statements we have received per peer, per candidate, and per chain-head. This is any statement concerning a particular candidate: `Seconded`, `Valid`, or `Invalid`. If we ever receive a statement from a peer which would push any of these counters beyond twice the amount of validators at the chain-head, we begin to lower the peer's standing and eventually disconnect. This bound is a massive overestimate and could be reduced to twice the number of validators in the corresponding validator group. It is worth noting that the goal at the time of writing is to ensure any finite bound on the amount of stored data, as any equivocation results in a large slash.