Danny pfp
Danny
@mad-scientist
Unpopular opinion: this is wrong https://x.com/TimBeiko/status/1895220802980847758 We need to use this as an opportunity to see how we can recover from such a situation without slashing. We won't want to slash mainnet honest stakers due to a client bug. A fix update needs to forces a client to a specific chain, ignoring the past, but also start thinking of conditional slashing protection.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

timbeiko.eth pfp
timbeiko.eth
@tim
It's not unpopular and I explain why we are doing this like two tweets after 😄 https://x.com/TimBeiko/status/1895222606921691305
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Danny pfp
Danny
@mad-scientist
I get it. It's the best solution for Holesky. But we are missing the opportunity to train from something similar on mainnet, where we don't want such a solution.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

timbeiko.eth pfp
timbeiko.eth
@tim
Getting this far saving Holesky taught us what we're missing to not have to do this on mainnet, so following through to recover Holesky should hopefully teach us more!
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Danny pfp
Danny
@mad-scientist
If you had to do a recovery, needing to reach finality in a reasonable timeframe (say a few days), but no slashing allowed, how would you go about it? (ignoring coordination and coding challenges, just protocol level). Is there anything we can do today, that will make such a recovery more easy if the need arises in the future?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction