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

More granular rewards #205

Closed
djrtwo opened this issue Nov 30, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

More granular rewards #205

djrtwo opened this issue Nov 30, 2018 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
general:bug Something isn't working

Comments

@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor

djrtwo commented Nov 30, 2018

Issue

We currently only reward attestations for two things

  • voting on the correct casper target
  • voting on the correct shard_block_hash

This ends up not granularly incentivizes two other components of the voting process:

  • voting on the correct casper source
  • voting on the correct beacon_block_hash for your assigned slot

Proposed solution

  • Give 1/4 of the total reward for individually satisfying each of the 4 above criteria
  • multiply the sum of the 4 rewards above by the adjust_for_inclusion_distance to adjust for late inclusion
  • An AttestationRecord can only be included in the block if voted on the correct source so the baseline reward for validators that got an attestation included is 1/4 of the total reward.
  • rework BASE_REWARD_QUOTIENT and reward_quotient such that 1/reward_quotient is actually the max amount by which your deposit can grow per cycle. (rather than right now, it is 2/reward_quotient) That means that each of these items should be rewarded a max 1/(4 * reward_quotient)
@vbuterin
Copy link
Contributor

vbuterin commented Dec 1, 2018

Agree!

Though I would also say multiply the sum of the 4 rewards above by the function which reduces your reward if the vote took longer than the minimum to include.

@hwwhww hwwhww added the general:bug Something isn't working label Dec 1, 2018
@djrtwo djrtwo self-assigned this Dec 3, 2018
@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor Author

djrtwo commented Dec 3, 2018

waiting for #217 to reduce merge conflicts

@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor Author

djrtwo commented Dec 12, 2018

closed via #290

@djrtwo djrtwo closed this as completed Dec 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
general:bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants