Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support New Validators at Launch #3802

Closed
3 of 4 tasks
alexanderbez opened this issue Mar 4, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3807
Closed
3 of 4 tasks

Support New Validators at Launch #3802

alexanderbez opened this issue Mar 4, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3807
Labels
S:proposed T: State Machine Breaking State machine breaking changes (impacts consensus).

Comments

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

alexanderbez commented Mar 4, 2019

Summary

A concern raised by @jaekwon, after the implementation of minimum self-delegation, is that it is advantageous to allow new (non-genesis) validators to be created at mainnet launch under the context of disabled transfers. Such reasons include comprised operator keys or validators who did not participate in GoS or the fundraiser that wish to be validators at launch.

Since transfers are disabled, we desire the ability to create new accounts (validator operators) with some small amount of uatoms (to meet their min self-delegation). Various solutions have been discussed offline and the main candidate proposal seems to be to allow MultiSend transfers where 90% of the tokens are burned. Further discussion should occur here.

/cc @cosmos/cosmossdk @ebuchman @zmanian @jaekwon


For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged
  • Contributor assigned/self-assigned
@alexanderbez alexanderbez added S:proposed core T: State Machine Breaking State machine breaking changes (impacts consensus). labels Mar 4, 2019
@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Mar 4, 2019

Thanks for the summary. Given a 90% burn fraction, crippled transfers being used for other purposes seems unlikely, although we could further opt to only allow such transfers if the destination account is empty.

Further implementation notes on the PR: #3787 (comment)

@jackzampolin
Copy link
Member

That seems like a good addition @cwgoes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S:proposed T: State Machine Breaking State machine breaking changes (impacts consensus).
Projects
None yet
3 participants