A PoS simplification proposal: make a design that only requires 8192 signatures per slot (even with SSF), making the consensus implementation considerably simpler and lighter.

A PoS simplification proposal: make a design that only requires 8192 signatures per slot (even with SSF), making the consensus implementation considerably simpler and lighter.

https://ethresear.ch/t/sticking-to-8192-signatures-per-slot-post-ssf-how-and-why/17989

No retrogaming restrictions 🕹️🌐🆓

Rome, Metropolitan City of Rome Capital, Italy

One approach would be to have independent reward curves for the two tiers, which would likely in equilibrium lead to slightly higher rewards for the higher tier.

I can't quite understand the second approach: which profit strategy leads an entity to choose between high cap and low cap? To me, it seems that a zero penalty risk is regardless the most profitable choice and the most susceptible to attacks.

Here for positive sum games! governance for games maximalist - game dev - trustless dev building http://ocraticarena.com

I don't see how (3) in particular is any less decentralized+meritocratic than the status quo!

How would this not decrease the censorship resistance of the chain? What kind of decentralised meritocratic system of selecting validators is there? Because if there isn’t one I don’t see how this doesn’t make ethereum less censorship resistant?

Do you have a current intuition about which of the approaches you'd lean towards?

My first blush reactions:

(1) removing solo staking feels wrong

(2) is interesting in a sort of house-senate way, but that is by no means a perfect model

(3) would want to see more research on the actual security level