Security Model
Slice is designed as a cryptoeconomic dispute resolution protocol, where security emerges from incentive alignment, economic cost, and transparent execution — not from authority or legal enforcement.
This section describes the security assumptions, guarantees, and limits of the protocol.
Security Philosophy
Slice does not attempt to determine absolute truth or legal correctness.
Instead, it is designed to ensure that:
dishonest behavior is economically costly,
coordinated manipulation is difficult and expensive,
and honest participation is the most rational strategy over time.
Security in Slice is achieved through game theory, staking mechanics, and protocol-enforced execution, not through trust in any centralized actor.
Threats Slice Is Designed to Mitigate
Slice is explicitly designed to mitigate the following classes of attacks:
Sybil Attacks
Mitigated through:
economic staking requirements,
proof-of-humanity and identity primitives (where enabled),
and cost proportional to participation.
Creating many identities does not grant proportional influence, only proportional risk.
Vote Manipulation and Collusion
Mitigated through:
random juror selection,
commit–reveal voting,
incoherent vote slashing,
and tier-based security escalation.
Collusion requires sustained coordination across multiple rounds and jurors, increasing economic exposure.
Bribery and Coercion
Mitigated through:
juror anonymity,
delayed vote revelation,
and lack of pre-commitment visibility.
Bribery becomes unreliable because outcomes cannot be verified before execution.
Low-Quality or Random Voting
Mitigated through:
loss of stake for incoherent votes,
rewards only for alignment with final outcomes,
and long-term negative expectancy for careless behavior.
Jurors who do not evaluate evidence are economically penalized over time.
Incentive Alignment as the Primary Defense
Slice’s primary security mechanism is incentive alignment, not identity or reputation alone.
Key properties:
Stake does not increase voting power.
Every juror has exactly one vote.
Economic exposure scales risk, not influence.
Rewards are only distributed to jurors who align with the final outcome.
This structure discourages whales, favors independent judgment, and aligns rational behavior with protocol integrity.
Tier-Based Security Escalation
Slice supports multiple tiers to match security guarantees with dispute risk.
Higher tiers provide:
more jurors,
higher total economic exposure,
and increased resistance to manipulation.
This allows users and integrators to choose a security level proportional to the value and complexity of the dispute.
Appeals as a Security Amplifier
Appeals act as a secondary security layer, increasing the cost of incorrect or adversarial outcomes.
Each appeal:
increases juror count and economic exposure,
re-evaluates the dispute under stricter conditions,
and incentivizes early honest voting.
Appeals are designed to converge outcomes toward coherent judgments without granting unilateral power to any party.
Limits of the System
Slice makes the following guarantees:
outcomes are enforced exactly as defined,
rules are transparent and immutable,
execution is on-chain and verifiable.
Slice does not guarantee:
legal correctness,
absolute truth,
or immunity from all forms of coordination under extreme conditions.
Human judgment is inherently probabilistic. Slice guarantees that dishonesty is costly, not impossible.
Progressive Security
Security in Slice increases through:
higher tiers,
appeals,
identity primitives,
and protocol adoption scale.
The protocol is designed to remain secure under realistic conditions and to strengthen as participation grows.
Last updated