2018-06-22 Validator Economics Meeting notes

Date

22 Jun 2018

Item	Who	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.

Medha Parlikar (Unlicensed) - Add the fee structure for new validators joining to Wiki Page
Medha Parlikar (Unlicensed) - Create agenda for next week.