Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
[feat] implement the operator interfaces expected by dogfood #21
[feat] implement the operator interfaces expected by dogfood #21
Changes from 1 commit
1df2ddf
84b76c1
2726d1d
ff6edf5
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Design question: Should jailing be done on a per-AVS basis or globally? We consider two potential reasons for slashing: first being the downtime and second being malicious activity like double-signing.
If an operator is slashed for downtime, we should only jail them for that specific AVS.
If an operator is slashed for malicious activity, we should ban them on all AVS.
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Both the malicious activities and slash proportions are configured by the specific Avs. If we ban them on all AVS when an operator acts maliciously on one Avs, Is it a problem that low-level misconduct will cause a maximum punishment?
I noticed a tombstone mechanism to mitigate the impact of initially likely categories of non-malicious protocol faults in cosmos-sdk. So, I'm also unsure about the appropriate level for the slash mechanism in Exocore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, as discussed, we should only jail temporarily for low level misconduct.
I might be misinterpreting this but I think they have two things:
I observed that permanent jailing is equivalent to tombstoning (and the SDK even performs them together). So we can remove that feature. Either an operator is jailed temporarily on a specific AVS, or they are permanently blocked from them all. For ease of use, we can replace the word "tombstone" with "freeze" like in our proposed design.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, this needs to be considered in the design and implementation of the slash module.