Penalize sync comiittee #2450
Closed
Penalize sync comiittee #2450
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
potuz
force-pushed
the
penalize-sync-comiittee
branch
from
8671df2 to
e762fa9
Compare
|
closing in favor of #2453 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR solves #2448 by inverting the logic for sync committee participation rewards into penalizing lack of participation. This way the vast majority of validators are not hindered nor need to resort to luck.
The one
base_rewardper epoch invariant is preserved by this PR, the only change is that the rewards weights should sum up to theWEIGHT_DENOMINATOR, but not including theSYNC_PENALTY_WEIGHTwhich is now otherwise an independent constant.Notice that there may be a false feeling that validators in the sync committee are now penalized since they may receive stiff penalties for missing participation in a slot, that otherwise wouldn't. However, with this approach, even after being penalized for missing a sync committee participation, the overall result for those validators is exactly the same as in the current rewards-based mechanism.
There are other options to mitigate the problem of #2448 like reducing the
SYNC_REWARD_WEIGHTandEPOCHS_PER_SYNC_COMMITTEE_PERIODbut these all lead to relying on luck to some factor. Given that the sync committee size is minimum compared to the active validator set, any set of constants will always result in a non-trivial probability of a high number of validators not being included in a committee for two years.Discussions in
https://discord.com/channels/595666850260713488/595701319793377299/847063172174577744