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

Updates in block signing stake are delayed from tendermint #642

Closed
Tracked by #340
brentstone opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #714
Closed
Tracked by #340

Updates in block signing stake are delayed from tendermint #642

brentstone opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #714
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@brentstone
Copy link
Collaborator

While trying to implement the PoS rewards in #388, I've noticed that the voting powers / stakes of validators who sign a block coming from tendermint get updated at a delay of 2 blocks relative to the corresponding update in the namada protocol. Particularly, the information obtained from tendermint is here. This behavior seems consisent with this old comment in our repo and with the Usage description for EndBlock in the abci docs.

It is crucial to get the correct block voting information with the signing validators' voting power since the block rewards are dependent on the stake of the signing validators. A possible solution could involve distributing rewards at a 3 block delay.

Has this ever come across as an issue for the eth-bridge integration? @batconjurer @james-chf @sug0

@brentstone brentstone added the PoS label Oct 18, 2022
@batconjurer
Copy link
Member

I think we are relying solely on the namada protocol for this, so we haven't run into it.

@brentstone
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Perhaps we can get around this by just ignoring the signing stake given by tendermint and getting the stake from the validator deltas on the namada side. The downside to this is that there will be some "leakage" of the old validator set voting powers into the first two blocks of a new epoch. If we can live with this though, then the solution could be simple.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants