-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Validators running insufficient hardware not penalized and no longer jailed? #212
Comments
Hi, @edgeofthegame Thanks for reporting this. We are aware of this, the bad performance validator is slow down the blockchain, but the staking mechanism will punish the invalid validators(been slashed with 50 BNB so far and in jail for two days, it will lose thousands of BNB in total), that will be a motivation for those validator to improve their hardware and monitor. |
Hi, @guagualvcha Since you are here, could you please update minimal requirements for your software in README? |
@edgeofthegame |
Unfortunately, this article is outdated. Now servers seem to need NVMe to keep up |
There are a few validators clearly running hardware incapable of keeping up with the chain, some were jailed roughly a day ago but now they're back at it again with hardware just as bad as before (if they even changed it)...
Just to name a few, take a look at Alan Turing & Avengers validators... Both of these validators are consistently only including <100 txns per block even though the txns they're including into blocks are only taking up ~15% of the block gas limit...
Here are some of the most recent blocks validated by Alan Turing:
Here are some of the most recent blocks validated by Avengers:
These validators are clearly running hardware incapable of keeping up with the chain, isn't there supposed to be some type of mechanism to penalize validators such as these?
NOTE: If this isn't an issue with the validators hardware, then it is still an issue on their end in which they should have been competent enough to resolve, i.e. being that other validators aren't experiencing the same issues....
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: