On-chain Governance - Githubissues

semuxproject / semux-core

Semux Core

https://www.semux.org

MIT License

76 stars 31 forks source link

On-chain Governance #164

Open cryptokat opened 5 years ago

cryptokat commented 5 years ago

There was a debate on the tokenconomics of Semux and people haven't seem to reach a consensus on the future block reward as only 55% of validators upgraded their nodes to v1.4.0. Voting based on-chain governance that enables validators to dynamically change consensus rules like block reward can be a solution to this situation.

TODOs

[ ] Figure out which parameters shoud/can be changed dynamically
[ ] Implement new transaction types for on-chain governance
[ ] Initiate a fork that enables on-chain governance

victorx716 commented 5 years ago

What % of validators need to upgrade nodes for consensus? Is it 100%?

cryptokat commented 5 years ago

@victorx716 67%

victorx716 commented 5 years ago

Hmm, is it 55% right now because some validators are not aware of v1.4.0? Or has everyone made a decision already. How do we know if validators did not upgrade to v1.4 because they are slow to change VS they do not want to support future block reward update?

cryptokat commented 5 years ago

@victorx716 I have no idea. This proposal is meant to reduce the risk that Semux consensus might be suspended if validators can't reach a consensus on rule change like #39 regardless it's because validators are not aware of the upgrade or they just don't like it.

victorx716 commented 5 years ago

@cryptokat Ah okay I understand what you mean now. I think it is a great proposal, and will be good for Semux in the future.

honeycrypto commented 5 years ago

This is a great proposal and we were discussing this many times in Discord.

@victorx716 I think there is no drama about 1.4.0 release, validators have been warned that the deadline for this update is Dec 2019 (block 2,000,000). And the thing is that very likely we will have other mandatory upgrades before that date, ie the bloody VM activation and others, so there is no rush for validators with the 1.4.0

orogvany commented 5 years ago

Pretty sure the validators not upgrading not as defiance to decision, but because we made a point to not mark it as a release with any need to spend time to upgrade as there's no real reason to anytime between now and November...

orogvany commented 5 years ago

For instance, I personally am waiting for 1.5 to update mine since this release contains no real reason to hurry and update... Let's not confuse motives

semuxgo commented 5 years ago

From an implementation perspective, we need to think about how balance can be turned into voting power.

orogvany commented 5 years ago

I don't believe this would work out to 'fair' voting power, given that more than half of the validators are pool operators with very little stake in the game. Adding voting power to how network runs without adding native delegated votes for votes seems a bit awkward. It would allow someone with 34k sem to be able to (via introducing 0% pools) veto power against any change.