Liveness Sample Clauses

Liveness. Finally, we argue that by the end of epoch R, every forever honest node will have output a bit. Observe that whenever a forever honest node is the leader in some epoch r (and such an r must exist because R ≥ f + 1), it will sign a unique and valid proposal. It follows that in this epoch r, all nodes (that have not already produce an output earlier) will output some bit.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Liveness. The protocol as presented thus far does not ensure liveness. We remedied this by introducing timeouts, such that players default to choosing an action when they did not respond. For some applications this may not be satisfactory, in that we want the parties to respond as quickly as possible rather than waiting for the timeout. We will fix this using an idea of Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [1]. We require both parties to submit a deposit in order to accept the contract. If a party times out, it loses its deposit. This incentivizes the parties to answer within the timeout. However, playing a move at any time before the timeout is still an equilibrium. We can fix the problem by withholding an amount of the deposit proportional to time taken. However, this unfairly punishes honest parties which may incur a short delay for legitimate reasons. Instead, the protocol is parameterized by two timeouts Tthreshold < Ttimeout. Tthreshold is a “reasonable” time before which parties are not punished, and Ttimeout is the timeout where a default action is taken. Let D be the size of the deposit. A party makes a decision at time t is paid ρ(t) defined by:  D if t ≤ Tthreshold  . ρ(t) = D  Σ 1 − t−Tthreshold Ttimeout−Tthreshold if T threshold < t < T timeout 0 o.w. This ensures that parties have largest incentive to answer within reasonable time, and otherwise to answer as quickly as possible. 9 Multiparty transactions In this section we consider generalizing the contract to more parties. Consider a multiparty transaction with n parties: each party may possibly transact with every other party (acting both as seller and buyer). Note that we could just invoke the two- party contract for each pair, however this would incur transaction fees O(n2) times which we would like to avoid. We present a contract that enables a set of n parties to make any number pairwise transactions using O(n) transaction fees, which is easily seen to be optimal. We denote by P1, . . . Pj the n players, and let xij be the size of the payment from Pi to Pj . We will essentially run the two-party protocol n2 times in parallel, and compress the bookkeeping using a procedure similar to how you would split the bill at a restaurant, the algorithm is as follows:

Related to Liveness

  • Responsiveness The Contractor has provided an appropriate and timely response to each of the City’s requests.

  • Dependability Compliance with instructions and regulations; reliability under varying conditions. ☐ Unsatisfactory Frequently undependable. ☐ Needs Improvement ☐ Meets Expectations Dependable under normal circumstances. ☐ Exceeds Expectations ☐ Outstanding Thoroughly reliable on assignments. Remarks: Click here to enter remarks

  • PRODUCTIVITY The Productivity Scheme which was agreed to is: Contained in Annexure B.

  • Indicators Debt to Asset Ratio (10%) •Cash Flow (10%) •Total Margin (25%) Risk Assessment Results

  • RENEWABILITY If You wish to renew coverage under this Service Agreement, please contact the Administrator prior to the expiration of Your current Term to initiate Our renewal process. Renewability is determined at Our sole discretion and may not be available.

  • Timeliness Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

  • Visibility 12.1. Contractor shall follow any instructions given by EFI relating to visibility for the tasks and output under this Contract, including the use of specific disclaimers.

  • Interoperability To the extent required by applicable law, Cisco shall provide You with the interface information needed to achieve interoperability between the Software and another independently created program. Cisco will provide this interface information at Your written request after you pay Cisco’s licensing fees (if any). You will keep this information in strict confidence and strictly follow any applicable terms and conditions upon which Cisco makes such information available.

  • Profitability The Board reviewed detailed information regarding revenues received by XXXX under the Agreement. The Board considered the estimated costs to XXXX, and pre-tax profits realized by XXXX, from advising the DWS Funds, as well as estimates of the pre-tax profits attributable to managing the Fund in particular. The Board also received information regarding the estimated enterprise-wide profitability of DIMA and its affiliates with respect to all fund services in totality and by fund. The Board and the Fee Consultant reviewed XXXX’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of the Fund. Based on the information provided, the Board concluded that the pre-tax profits realized by XXXX in connection with the management of the Fund were not unreasonable. The Board also reviewed certain publicly available information regarding the profitability of certain similar investment management firms. The Board noted that, while information regarding the profitability of such firms is limited (and in some cases is not necessarily prepared on a comparable basis), DIMA and its affiliates’ overall profitability with respect to the DWS Funds (after taking into account distribution and other services provided to the funds by XXXX and its affiliates) was lower than the overall profitability levels of most comparable firms for which such data was available. Economies of Scale. The Board considered whether there are economies of scale with respect to the management of the Fund and whether the Fund benefits from any economies of scale. The Board noted that the Fund’s investment management fee schedule includes fee breakpoints. The Board concluded that the Fund’s fee schedule represents an appropriate sharing between the Fund and DIMA of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the Fund at current asset levels.

  • Compatibility 1. Any unresolved issue arising from a mutual agreement procedure case otherwise within the scope of the arbitration process provided for in this Article and Articles 25A to 25G shall not be submitted to arbitration if the issue falls within the scope of a case with respect to which an arbitration panel or similar body has previously been set up in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral convention that provides for mandatory binding arbitration of unresolved issues arising from a mutual agreement procedure case.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!