2018-06-22 Validator Economics Meeting notes

Rewards & Utility

Greg

• Nash - It is more important to pay for the validation of blocks.  It isn't about a race to solve a puzzle.

• Greg - would like to pay by the measure of utility.  But this requires a verifiable identity.

• Mike - we want to issue known bad blocks, per Kent and Kyle.  Honest validators have to do the same amount of work as validators that are obtaining transactions.  

• Greg likes the idea of issuing challenges.  Mike and Kyle are writing it up.  Kyle is proposing that we include an invalid COMM event.  Produce a proof that others cannot use.  In order to know that the proof is correct, you have to know the answer.  This will give us a mechanism to eject persons not doing the valuable work.  We can determine if it is a slashing condition.

Stake weighting

Greg

• Nash prefers no stake weighting.  Rather that spending capital on stake, would rather incent persons to put infrastructure on the network.

• Concern around the army of ants attack - lots of validators.  Counter measure is fees to join a namespace.

• Big stake - no work.

• Greg wants to encourage lots of distinct validators, however there is no way to distinguish between the army of ants and a long tail.

• We want infrastructure providers to invest in high end hardware to service the blockchain.  We also want these 

Next Steps

Greg

• Wants to run the stake weighting by Vlad and Nate.  

• Meeting attendees will attend the Casper standup on Monday and discuss with Vlad and Nate.