Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.

Better reward scheme for staking miner #3393

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Better reward scheme for staking miner #3393

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kianenigma
Copy link
Contributor

Still not happy with needing to hardcode "length assumptions". Ideally we should track how much fee is being consumed in the transaction and exactly pay that back later.

Aside from not taking length into account, the previous model was also wrong to assume that PerThing can be larger than 1.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the A0-please_review Pull request needs code review. label Jul 1, 2021
@kianenigma
Copy link
Contributor Author

related: paritytech/substrate#9247

@kianenigma kianenigma requested a review from KiChjang July 1, 2021 10:09
@kianenigma kianenigma added B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders. D5-nicetohaveaudit ⚠️ PR contains trivial changes to logic that should be properly reviewed. labels Jul 1, 2021
coriolinus
coriolinus approved these changes Jul 1, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@coriolinus coriolinus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, agree that it would be nice to avoid needing to hard-code the current weight, but also agree that this is an improvement on the status quo.

emostov
emostov approved these changes Jul 1, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@emostov emostov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

just a little confused on the intention here vs #3141, which seems to introduce the exact same code.

@kianenigma
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, yeah I added this to the miner PR as well. easier to merge it there.

@kianenigma kianenigma closed this Jul 1, 2021
@emostov emostov mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2021
Merged
@louismerlin louismerlin removed the D5-nicetohaveaudit ⚠️ PR contains trivial changes to logic that should be properly reviewed. label Oct 13, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@coriolinus coriolinus coriolinus approved these changes

@emostov emostov emostov approved these changes

@KiChjang KiChjang Awaiting requested review from KiChjang

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A0-please_review Pull request needs code review. B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@kianenigma @coriolinus @emostov @louismerlin