PUP-17: The Phase Plan (a progressive plan for network security and optimizations)

[zaatar]

@addison

…if the block proposer reward were to be increased, it would be an economically viable strategy to try and take all of the validator slots. This is not a secure solution…

(This relates to Shane’s current proposal.) So said Addison under PUP-14 in regards to network security and his proposal to 5x the number of validators. No one responded to Addison’s comment. Is his concern valid? It certainly needs addressing.

If it is valid, perhaps the number of validators should be upped somewhat as a tweak to PUP-17? I did not see any core devs weigh in on this issue or on the related network bloat aspect.

But I do note Jack’s comment on PUP-14:

@JackALaing

I’m not opposed to expanding the validator set, it just shouldn’t be our only solution. I think we should also keep in mind that we may later want to reduce MaxValidators again in light of the light client and the behaviors we observe in how many node runners optimize to be a servicer vs validator.

In another vein, I suggest that before voting on the current economic proposals (Good Vibes etc), a presentation (with a debate component?) be held on Discord by the proponents of the competing visions and that a core dev also participate to ensure that important technical aspects are not overlooked. The written contributions have been extensive and a debate would bring some focus and help the voting public and wider community to better understand the pros and cons. There could be a moderator (Jinx?) and presenters could field audience questions.