Protocol meeting 26/9/2018

I hope it’s OK to post meeting notes. As stated, it would probably be best to capture videos of meetings so that we can at least publish them later if we choose. Notice that if you watch the Ethereum meeting videos, most/all of the participants don’t have video on. They also use Zoom, which works better for lots of participants, (although participants are usually be expected to be working on a low level on the protocol) and is easy to share a link to join the meeting.

Above bootstrapping sequence are just redundancy options. I said that as an MVP or PoC it may be OK but would question whether to have it even as an option—it isn’t necessary with Kademlia.



Models include as discussed in white paper: zero or infinitely growing.

Need to set rewards non-arbitrarily according to the amount of utility provided by the rewardee, as well as slashing deposits for bad acting (slashing the full deposit since there may be a low probability of detecting bad acting e.g. if there is insufficient validation).

As raised here, I suggested to consider other ways of funding, e.g. liberal radicalism: Liberal Radicalism: A Flexible Design For Philanthropic Matching Funds by Vitalik Buterin, Zoë Hitzig, E. Glen Weyl :: SSRN, which is most suited to funding public goods like public blockchains, FOSS projects, public p2p networks, etc.

Post link to with note on economic parameters: SQRT_E_DROP_TIME, BASE_REWARD_QUOTIENT, DEPOSIT_SIZE - 32 ETH

SQRT_E_DROP_TIME - a constant set to reflect the amount of time it will take for the quadratic leak to cut nonparticipating validators’ deposits by ~39.4%. Currently set to 2**20 seconds (~12 days).

BASE_REWARD_QUOTIENT - 1/this is the per-slot interest rate assuming all validators are participating, assuming total deposits of 1 ETH. Currently set to 2**15 = 32768, corresponding to ~3.88% annual interest assuming 10 million participating ETH.

Yep, no issues with this :slight_smile: