Epoch checkpoints
Tower groups finalized history into epochs. Checkpoints provide a common reference for the longer-range finality protocol.
The epoch finality architecture
A longer view of finality.
Tower defines stake-backed epoch checkpoints and slashable voting rules above Sigil’s block-level consensus.
Tower FinalityIllustrated study
Shared rules. Separate actors.
Illustrated coordination. No live network activity.
01 / Built for a purpose
Connect blocks to checkpoints.
MACA reaches agreement on blocks. Tower’s architecture adds an epoch-level view: validators vote between checkpoints, and conflicting votes can become evidence. The distinction makes the guarantees of each layer easier to inspect.
Votes with consequences
The design uses stake-backed source-and-target votes. Double votes and surround votes describe specific kinds of conflicting behavior.
Evidence that can be checked
The implemented evidence path verifies witness signatures and freshness before recording evidence and applying the configured penalties.
Separate signing domains
Tower messages have their own signing context. A checkpoint vote is distinct from a MACA precommit, even when the same operator participates in both.
The details matterGood questions.
Good questions.
Clear answers.
Can I join Tower through the public transaction interface today?
Most direct registration, finality-vote, delegation, and reward paths remain gated. Treat operator activation as a separate release step, rather than assuming the architecture page means enrollment is open.
Does evidence anchoring require Tower?
No. Sigil’s Evidence Anchoring transaction uses its own inclusion and attribution path. It does not depend on Tower or CZAC settlement.
Keep exploringOne capability.