You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A rational validator may bypass the churn queue by voluntarily slashing himself if he's in a hurry to get his money. Because of partial slashing the validator only loses 1/32nd of its balance at stake in the best case.
Should we replace exit_validator by initiate_validator_exit in slash_validator to avoid this queue bypass? This would also be a cleaner way of handling #785 and would simplify the validator state machine since all exits (voluntary exits, ejections, slashings) would go through the same exit pipeline stages.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
That's what the longer 36-day time-to-exit if you get slashed is meant to discourage. I would say when we do the validator queue -> exit queue reform, set that time to exit to be equal to the time needed to go through the queue if you were behind every currently bonded validator.
A rational validator may bypass the churn queue by voluntarily slashing himself if he's in a hurry to get his money. Because of partial slashing the validator only loses 1/32nd of its balance at stake in the best case.
Should we replace
exit_validator
byinitiate_validator_exit
inslash_validator
to avoid this queue bypass? This would also be a cleaner way of handling #785 and would simplify the validator state machine since all exits (voluntary exits, ejections, slashings) would go through the same exit pipeline stages.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: