Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Parachain auctions #239
referenced this pull request
May 8, 2019
Have you considered allowing the gap period to be auctioned again i.e. at a later time? I guess this would add too much complexity or introduce other issues and wouldn't be particularly good from a UX perspective
That isn't the issue. The problem is if we win slots 1 and 3, then we'd start a parachain at slot 1, have to have it stop at slot 2 and then restart it or start another parachain at slot 3. This seems like a bad idea as we don't plan to pause parachains that don't manage to renew their lease. Instead the current plan for stopping parachains is to return all the DOTs they own to accounts they specify.
So we don't want the same bidder to win slots 1 and 3. That might mean that even if we had the highest bid on those slots, then the optimal set of winning bids might include our bid on 1 and say someone else's lower bid on slot 3. But unfortunately, we only store the highest bid on each interval, so we can't handle this situation.
We get round this by ignoring someone's bid on slot 3 if they have the highest bid on slot 1, as we might need to combine that with the current highest bid on slot 3.
That's why we have this limitation.
yes. the auctioning system is designed to only "maintain"
forgot to mention: all the above comments are the combination of me and @shawntabrizi sitting down together and going through the code. You can discard me as a separate reviewer.
I was going through your answers and from the looks of it, most of the critical ones were our misunderstanding. We will probably sit down together in a few more sessions to learn more about it. Merging or waiting would be up to you IMO.