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

QGB orchestrator signing everything before implementing slashing #479

Closed
Tracked by #301
rach-id opened this issue Jun 9, 2022 · 6 comments
Closed
Tracked by #301

QGB orchestrator signing everything before implementing slashing #479

rach-id opened this issue Jun 9, 2022 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@rach-id
Copy link
Member

rach-id commented Jun 9, 2022

As discussed in #478 (comment)_, currently, the QGB orchestrator is implemented to sign attestations up to the last unbonding period. This makes sense when we have slashing, as after the unbonding period, if an orchestrator didn't sign it will already be slashed and no need to sign at that point.

However, before implementing slashing, there is no need to stop up to a certain height, as in testnets, we would want to have most attestations signed anyway.

Proposal: when an orchestrator is started, it goes over all the attestations where it was part of the valset and signs them (without having to worry about the last unbonding period).

@rach-id rach-id added C: QGB enhancement New feature or request labels Jun 9, 2022
@rach-id
Copy link
Member Author

rach-id commented Jul 4, 2022

@evan-forbes What do you think about this?

@rach-id rach-id linked a pull request Jul 5, 2022 that will close this issue
@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

when an orchestrator is started, it goes over all the attestations where it was part of the valset and signs them (without having to worry about the last unbonding period).

this seems sane. we definitely don't want people to submit pointless signatures. as a side note, this could actually be implemented in a single transaction with many sdk.Msg, to sort of batch sign.

@rach-id
Copy link
Member Author

rach-id commented Oct 3, 2022

without having to worry about the last unbonding period

Do we want this? I guess we decided in our last call to only sign up to the last unbonding period...
I have a question concerning the unbonding period, is it validator specific or for the whole valset?

@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

I have a question concerning the unbonding period, is it validator specific or for the whole valset?

The whole valset, except if the validator was not part of the valset for the entirety of it

@rach-id
Copy link
Member Author

rach-id commented Oct 3, 2022

Okey cool then. Thanks a lot

@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

per sync discussion, this issue can be closed due to moving to v2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
No open projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants