Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Thomas pfp
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Following @vitalik.eth’s EthResearch post yesterday (https://ethresear.ch/t/sticking-to-8192-signatures-per-slot-post-ssf-how-and-why/17989) on what comes after single-slot finality, I have two questions for the experts:
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions

Thomas pfp
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
1/ Why not first increase the MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE as previously proposed and assess the consolidating effect on validator count down to a more manageable number of signatures?
3 replies
0 recast
0 reaction

Thomas pfp
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
2/ If a 1K validator committee is too small and makes a 51% attack economical (because non-selected hostile validators are safe from slashing), why not a much larger committee, say at least 2^15 validators which is just over 1M ETH? Are large-ish committees impractical?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Barnabé Monnot pfp
Barnabé Monnot
@barnabe
Different views, the argument from @fradamt that convinced me is that we anyways need to plan updates such as SSF for the worst case, since in an adversarial setting validators can revert to disaggregating. So doing MaxEB and wait to see if it’s effective enough is not enough (I am still bullish MaxEB in general)
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
So we have ~900k validators today, how much do you think increasing the max balance would reduce it? Hard to imagine it dropping <10k let alone <100k. I do agree that's the first step (I think the post aligns with that too).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction