# Request For Comments: Aztec's Block Production System **URL:** \ **Category:** Aztec\ **Tags:** rfc, sequencers, provers\ **Created:** [September 27, 2024, 4:26pm UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/request-for-comments-aztecs-block-production-system/6155 "2024-09-27T16:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![amin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@amin](https://forum.aztec.network/u/amin)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2024, 5:50pm UTC](https://forum.aztec.network/t/request-for-comments-aztecs-block-production-system/6155/6 "2024-10-02T17:50:17Z")
> No, just one block with unavailable `TxObject` data. Yes if the committee withholds a `TxObject` from a bonded prover, they will be grieved. In practice, provers will run a full node to make sure they have all the data they need before making a bid. For a proposal to be appended to the pending chain, a supermajority of the committee should execute the proposal and be prepared to propagate all the associated `TxObject` to peers. So if a `TxObject` is being withheld, that means the committee is dishonest (or simply not executing proposals). Depending on the final slashing design, the sequencer and/or entire committee could be slashed which sets a minimum cost for such an attack. > A MIN\_PROVER\_TIME can also be set to make decentralized compute competetive [[2] ](https://forum.aztec.network/t/ideas-on-a-proving-network/724/2). I agree that a minimum proving time removes _some_ but not all centralization vectors. I think that in principle, such a minimum time alters the race to who can get included on L1 the fastest. Large provers can work deals with L1 builders to get a persistent advantage. It also does not alleviate redundancy and wasted compute by the provers. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.aztec.network/t/request-for-comments-aztecs-block-production-system/6155)._