2019-02-20 Meeting notes: validation and Casper


Feb 20, 2019


  • @Kelly Foster

  • @Lucius Meredith

  • @Dominik Zajkowski

  • @Former user (Deleted)

  • @Chris Boscolo

  • @Artur Gajowy

  • @Joseph Denman

  • @Philipp Strauch


We will use this time to resolve questions and open issues in validator incentives and Casper.

Discussion topics






Lazy validator hedge (challenge protocol)

  • DECISION We will implement a lazy validator challenge protocol

    • Request to table to discuss the design at another time

  • Estimated a week’s worth of work

  • Discussion of liveness faults challenge

    • Idea 24 hours to respond

Paragraph 5 : “Transactions signed to a particular validator”

  • This is not desirable

    • Risk of pushing out other validators “popularity contest”

  • Ideal is a gossip network so that it doesn’t matter who you deploy to. There is no special relationship between client and validator

  • There is not a gossip network for Mercury. We want to mitigate the risk of preventing being able to implement it later


    • remove “transactions are signed to a particular validator”

    • Go back to a stake-weighted proposal for distributing fees

Paragraph 6: “all validators are taxed”

  • DECISION remove tax no longer needed

Discussion of attack related to asymmetry of distribution of fees

  • Concern is over the lifetime of Mercury will we see a serious threat to the network?

    • Risk of centralizing block proposing

    • Creating an edge for some validators

Next steps

  • We will meet again to continue discussion

Action items

@Former user (Deleted) delete paragraph 6
@Former user (Deleted) Edit paragraph 5 to remove stipulation for signing transactions to a particular validator
@Former user (Deleted) Edit paragraph 5 to revert to stake-weighted distribution of fees


  1. Convert values to parameters