[discussion] Chunk uncles #3945
Replies: 4 comments
-
When is the chunk at height |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Very good question. I see two possibilities of what @SkidanovAlex meant:
In both understanding there is a gap for block producers to decide what to do with current chunk:
Block hash can be affected for unfair purposes, however we never rely that it must be truly random. Sharding cases should work well with possible latency to two blocks (one for skipped txs and one for skipped receipt). Not sure what's happening on epoch boundaries, it's important to look into them too. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I discussed with @SkidanovAlex offline. What alex wants is to not apply that chunk at all and only include chunk hash and signature. The concern I have is that validators are disincentivized to do this because by unless the missed one is produced by themselves, not doing this means that some other validator may get less reward or kicked out, which implies that fewer tokens are minted and is thus more preferable. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@SkidanovAlex is 0.8 calculated based on the current threshold of 0.9? We may want to lower the threshold for chunk producers when there are multiple shards |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I propose the following addition to the protocol:
A chunk at height
H+1
can include a hash and a signature of a chunk at heightH
if the block at heightH
is missing the chunk. If such a chunk and a signature are included, the number of chunks produced by the chunk producer atH
is increased by 0.8.This effectively doubles the time that the chunk producers has to have their chunk distributed to not be fully penalized for missing it. And also it doubles the number of participants to whom the message needs to be lost for the full penalty.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions