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

Miscellaneous beacon chain changes—take 4 #675

Closed
29 of 45 tasks
JustinDrake opened this issue Feb 22, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed
29 of 45 tasks

Miscellaneous beacon chain changes—take 4 #675

JustinDrake opened this issue Feb 22, 2019 · 7 comments

Comments

@JustinDrake
Copy link
Collaborator

JustinDrake commented Feb 22, 2019

(See #128, #218, #322 for takes 1, 2, 3.)

Below is a list of miscellaneous suggestions for phase 0, most of which were discussed on the researcher's call on Feb 19. This issue keeps track of some of the phase 0 work remaining.

@vbuterin
Copy link
Contributor

  1. Immediately withdrawable if bad proof of possession: See Gracefully handle bad proofs of possession #657.

We decided during the call to not do that, correct?

  1. Increase proposer rewards: See Proposer penalties #621. Need to check incentive compatibility with inclusion distance reward.

If we are going to do this, then making proposer rewards proportional to balance should arguably be in there as well. But it's not yet clear to be that we should do this; as I mentioned in the call, proposer rewards are already an expected 1/9 of validator's total revenue, and expected to increase in phase 1 due to minor rewards from the various custody objects.

@vbuterin
Copy link
Contributor

Also, did we want to add a mandatory minimum time that a validator must have been deposited before they can exit? This would (i) ensure stability of persistent committees and (ii) help put a cap on validator registry modification events.

@vbuterin
Copy link
Contributor

vbuterin commented Mar 8, 2019

  1. Improved rate limiting: Change the rate limiting logic (for entry/exit/withdrawal) based on this Ethresear.ch post.

I asked econoar to study more to make sure this is a good idea.

@vbuterin
Copy link
Contributor

vbuterin commented Mar 8, 2019

13a and 13b

#735

@vbuterin
Copy link
Contributor

vbuterin commented Mar 8, 2019

  1. No backfilling of latest_active_index_roots: Only set the active index root for the first slot.

Why? In the light client spec, I use the latest_active_index_roots as a way of getting the historical proposal committee, and removing the backfilling would require me to add extra special case logic there for the near-genesis case.

@vbuterin
Copy link
Contributor

vbuterin commented Mar 8, 2019

  1. Double justifications: Specify fork choice rule when there are two justified blocks at the same height. (Possible solution: ignore both and fallback to the previous highest justified block.)

I'd say we just use the same rule we do in other contexts and sort lexicographically by hash.

vbuterin added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 8, 2019
djrtwo added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2019
Cannot exit until 2048 epochs (#675 item 21) [redo]
vbuterin added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2019
Resolves #675 point 5.
JustinDrake added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2019
JustinDrake added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2019
See item 22 in #675. Also partially addresses #527.
JustinDrake added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2019
@JustinDrake JustinDrake reopened this Mar 19, 2019
@JustinDrake
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closing in favour of #1053 and #1054 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants