[Polkadot Wiki Migration] Offenses and Slashes #43
Conversation
CrackTheCode016
commented
Sep 19, 2024
CrackTheCode016
commented
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remaining comments which cannot be posted as a review comment to avoid GitHub Rate Limit
vale
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|112 col 62| [Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'unapplied'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|112 col 62| [Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'unapplied'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|116 col 1| [Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'unapplied'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|116 col 1| [Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'unapplied'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|130 col 19| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'aren't' instead of 'are not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|130 col 79| [Google.Semicolons] Use semicolons judiciously.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|134 col 54| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'don't' instead of 'do not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|142 col 23| [Google.Latin] Use 'that is' instead of 'i.e.'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|146 col 82| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'aren't' instead of 'are not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|150 col 67| [Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'reputational'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|150 col 67| [Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'reputational'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|153 col 53| [Vale.Avoid] Avoid using 'our'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|153 col 53| [Google.We] Try to avoid using first-person plural like 'our'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|158 col 10| [Papermoon.Acronyms] Spell out 'BABE', if it's unfamiliar to the audience.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|158 col 20| [Papermoon.Acronyms] Spell out 'BEEFY', if it's unfamiliar to the audience.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|165 col 6| [Vale.Avoid] Avoid using 'our'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|165 col 6| [Google.We] Try to avoid using first-person plural like 'our'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|165 col 23| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'doesn't' instead of 'does not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|165 col 56| [Papermoon.Acronyms] Spell out 'BABE', if it's unfamiliar to the audience.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|168 col 12| [Google.Latin] Use 'that is' instead of 'i.e.'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|176 col 13| [Papermoon.WordSwapList] Use 'preceding' instead of 'above'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|179 col 25| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'doesn't' instead of 'does not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|182 col 1| [Vale.Terms] Use 'validators' instead of 'Validators'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|184 col 38| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'don't' instead of 'do not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|203 col 376| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'didn't' instead of 'did not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|205 col 467| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'wasn't' instead of 'was not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|213 col 3| [Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'doesn't' instead of 'does not'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|214 col 3| [Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'Slashable'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|214 col 3| [Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'Slashable'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|217 col 58| [Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'overslashing'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|217 col 58| [Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'overslashing'?
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|235 col 97| [Google.We] Try to avoid using first-person plural like 'our'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|235 col 97| [Vale.Avoid] Avoid using 'our'.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|236 col 81| [Google.Semicolons] Use semicolons judiciously.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|236 col 99| [Google.We] Try to avoid using first-person plural like 'us'.
| staked tokens via [Nominated Proof-of-Stake](./learn-staking.md#nominated-proof-of-stake-npos). | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Polkadot is a public permissionless network. As such, it has a mechanism to disincentivize offenses and incentivize good behavior. Below, you can |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'permissionless'?
| staked tokens via [Nominated Proof-of-Stake](./learn-staking.md#nominated-proof-of-stake-npos). | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Polkadot is a public permissionless network. As such, it has a mechanism to disincentivize offenses and incentivize good behavior. Below, you can |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'permissionless'?
| staked tokens via [Nominated Proof-of-Stake](./learn-staking.md#nominated-proof-of-stake-npos). | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Polkadot is a public permissionless network. As such, it has a mechanism to disincentivize offenses and incentivize good behavior. Below, you can |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'disincentivize'?
| staked tokens via [Nominated Proof-of-Stake](./learn-staking.md#nominated-proof-of-stake-npos). | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Polkadot is a public permissionless network. As such, it has a mechanism to disincentivize offenses and incentivize good behavior. Below, you can |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'disincentivize'?
| Polkadot is a public permissionless network. As such, it has a mechanism to disincentivize offenses and incentivize good behavior. Below, you can | ||
| find a summary of punishments for specific offenses: | ||
|
|
||
| | Offense | [Slash (%)](#slashing) | [On-chain Disabling](#disabling) | Off-chain Disabling | [Reputational Changes](#reputation-changes) | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'Reputational'?
| **Slashing** will happen if a validator misbehaves in the network. They and their nominators will | ||
| get slashed by losing a percentage of their staked DOT/KSM, from as little as 0.01% up to 100%. | ||
|
|
||
| Any slashed DOT/KSM will be added to the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.Acronyms] Spell out 'DOT', if it's unfamiliar to the audience.
| **Slashing** will happen if a validator misbehaves in the network. They and their nominators will | ||
| get slashed by losing a percentage of their staked DOT/KSM, from as little as 0.01% up to 100%. | ||
|
|
||
| Any slashed DOT/KSM will be added to the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.Acronyms] Spell out 'KSM', if it's unfamiliar to the audience.
| be useful in situations such as faulty slashes. In the case of legitimate slashing, tokens are moved | ||
| away from malicious validators to those building the ecosystem through the normal Treasury process. | ||
|
|
||
| Slashing only occurs for active validations for a given nominator, and slashes are not mitigated by |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'aren't' instead of 'are not'.
|
|
||
| Slashing only occurs for active validations for a given nominator, and slashes are not mitigated by | ||
| having other inactive or waiting nominations. They are also not mitigated by the validator operator | ||
| running separate nodes; each node is considered its own entity for slashing purposes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Google.Semicolons] Use semicolons judiciously.
|
|
||
| ::: | ||
|
|
||
| Once a validator gets slashed, it goes into the state as an "unapplied slash". You can check this |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Google.Quotes] Commas and periods go inside quotation marks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remaining comments which cannot be posted as a review comment to avoid GitHub Rate Limit
vale
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|227 col 81| [Google.Semicolons] Use semicolons judiciously.
infrastructure/validators/offenses-slashes.md|227 col 99| [Google.We] Try to avoid using first-person plural like 'us'.
| **Slashing** will happen if a validator misbehaves in the network. They and their nominators will | ||
| get slashed by losing a percentage of their staked DOT/KSM, from as little as 0.01% up to 100%. | ||
|
|
||
| Any slashed DOT/KSM will be added to the [Treasury](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-polkadot-opengov-treasury){target=\_blank}. The rationale for this (rather than burning or distributing them as rewards) is that slashes may be reverted by simply paying out from the Treasury. This would |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.Acronyms] Spell out 'DOT', if it's unfamiliar to the audience.
| **Slashing** will happen if a validator misbehaves in the network. They and their nominators will | ||
| get slashed by losing a percentage of their staked DOT/KSM, from as little as 0.01% up to 100%. | ||
|
|
||
| Any slashed DOT/KSM will be added to the [Treasury](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-polkadot-opengov-treasury){target=\_blank}. The rationale for this (rather than burning or distributing them as rewards) is that slashes may be reverted by simply paying out from the Treasury. This would |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.Acronyms] Spell out 'KSM', if it's unfamiliar to the audience.
| be useful in situations such as faulty slashes. In the case of legitimate slashing, tokens are moved | ||
| away from malicious validators to those building the ecosystem through the normal Treasury process. | ||
|
|
||
| Slashing only occurs for active validations for a given nominator, and slashes are not mitigated by |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.NotContractions] Use 'aren't' instead of 'are not' to improve clarity for the reader
| validator). Staking allocations are controlled by the [Phragmén algorithm](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-phragmen#understanding-phragm%C3%A9n){target=\_blank}. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Once a validator gets slashed, it goes into the state as an "unapplied slash". You can check this |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'unapplied'?
| validator). Staking allocations are controlled by the [Phragmén algorithm](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-phragmen#understanding-phragm%C3%A9n){target=\_blank}. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Once a validator gets slashed, it goes into the state as an "unapplied slash". You can check this |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'unapplied'?
| - A nominator can nominate multiple validators and be slashed via any of them. | ||
| - Until slashed, the stake is reused from era to era. Nominating with N coins for E eras in a row | ||
| does not mean you have N\*E coins to be slashed - you've only ever had N. | ||
| - Slashable offenses can be found after the fact and out of order. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'Slashable'?
| - A nominator can nominate multiple validators and be slashed via any of them. | ||
| - Until slashed, the stake is reused from era to era. Nominating with N coins for E eras in a row | ||
| does not mean you have N\*E coins to be slashed - you've only ever had N. | ||
| - Slashable offenses can be found after the fact and out of order. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'Slashable'?
| - Slashable offenses can be found after the fact and out of order. | ||
|
|
||
| To balance this, the system applies only the maximum slash a participant can receive in a given time | ||
| period rather than the sum. This ensures protection from overslashing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Papermoon.CustomDictionary] Did you really mean 'overslashing'?
| - Slashable offenses can be found after the fact and out of order. | ||
|
|
||
| To balance this, the system applies only the maximum slash a participant can receive in a given time | ||
| period rather than the sum. This ensures protection from overslashing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚫 [vale] reported by reviewdog 🐶
[Vale.Spelling] Did you really mean 'overslashing'?
| ### Reputation Changes | ||
|
|
||
| Some minor offenses often connected to spamming are only punished by Networking Reputation Changes. | ||
| When validators connect to each other, they use a reputation metric for each of their peers. If our |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[Google.We] Try to avoid using first-person plural like 'our'.
| @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| title: Offenses and Slashes | |||
| description: Offenses and Slashes in the Polkadot Ecosystem. | |||
|
|
||
| ## Offenses | ||
|
|
||
| !!!info Learn more about the parachain protocol |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems that this admonition is not rendering as expected
| [parachain protocol](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-parachains-protocol#parachain-protocol){target=\_blank}. | ||
|
|
||
| On Polkadot, there are six main validator | ||
| offenses as shown below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| offenses as shown below. | |
| offenses as shown below: |
| - **Backing Invalid:** A para-validator is backing an invalid block. | ||
| - **ForInvalid Vote:** A validator (secondary checker) votes in favor of an invalid block. | ||
| - **AgainstValid Vote:** A validator (secondary checker) is voting against a valid block (and | ||
| wasting network resources). | ||
| - **Equivocation:** A validator produces two or more of the same block or vote. | ||
| - GRANDPA and BEEFY Equivocation: A validator signs two or more votes in the same round on | ||
| different chains. | ||
| - BABE Equivocation: A validator produces two or more blocks on the Relay Chain in the same time | ||
| slot. | ||
| - **Double Seconded Equivocation:** Within a backing group of 5 para-validators, at most 5 backed | ||
| parablocks are possible. Each parablock requires exactly one seconded and at least two more valid | ||
| votes from the five potential backers. This makes an upper bound on the number of parablocks the | ||
| system has to deal with while still allowing some choice for relay chain block authors. Backers | ||
| must decide which parablock to second, and they cannot second another. If another seconding vote | ||
| is found, they will be punished (somewhat lightly as of now, but there is little to gain from | ||
| this). All of this is made slightly more complicated with | ||
| [asynchronous backing](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-async-backing){target=\_blank} as it is no longer one candidate per relay chain | ||
| block as backers can back blocks "into the future" optimistically. See | ||
| [this page](https://paritytech.github.io/polkadot-sdk/book/node/backing/statement-distribution.html#seconding-limit){target=\_blank} | ||
| for more information. | ||
| - **Seconded + Valid Equivocation:** This happens when a malicious node first seconds something | ||
| (takes absolute responsibility for it), and then only pretends to be someone who just said it is | ||
| correct after someone else takes responsibility. That is a straight-up lie (equivocation). A node | ||
| could use that tactic to escape responsibility, but once the system notices the two conflicting | ||
| votes, the offense is reported. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - **Backing Invalid:** A para-validator is backing an invalid block. | |
| - **ForInvalid Vote:** A validator (secondary checker) votes in favor of an invalid block. | |
| - **AgainstValid Vote:** A validator (secondary checker) is voting against a valid block (and | |
| wasting network resources). | |
| - **Equivocation:** A validator produces two or more of the same block or vote. | |
| - GRANDPA and BEEFY Equivocation: A validator signs two or more votes in the same round on | |
| different chains. | |
| - BABE Equivocation: A validator produces two or more blocks on the Relay Chain in the same time | |
| slot. | |
| - **Double Seconded Equivocation:** Within a backing group of 5 para-validators, at most 5 backed | |
| parablocks are possible. Each parablock requires exactly one seconded and at least two more valid | |
| votes from the five potential backers. This makes an upper bound on the number of parablocks the | |
| system has to deal with while still allowing some choice for relay chain block authors. Backers | |
| must decide which parablock to second, and they cannot second another. If another seconding vote | |
| is found, they will be punished (somewhat lightly as of now, but there is little to gain from | |
| this). All of this is made slightly more complicated with | |
| [asynchronous backing](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-async-backing){target=\_blank} as it is no longer one candidate per relay chain | |
| block as backers can back blocks "into the future" optimistically. See | |
| [this page](https://paritytech.github.io/polkadot-sdk/book/node/backing/statement-distribution.html#seconding-limit){target=\_blank} | |
| for more information. | |
| - **Seconded + Valid Equivocation:** This happens when a malicious node first seconds something | |
| (takes absolute responsibility for it), and then only pretends to be someone who just said it is | |
| correct after someone else takes responsibility. That is a straight-up lie (equivocation). A node | |
| could use that tactic to escape responsibility, but once the system notices the two conflicting | |
| votes, the offense is reported. | |
| - Backing Invalid - a para-validator is backing an invalid block | |
| - ForInvalid Vote - a validator (secondary checker) votes in favor of an invalid block | |
| - AgainstValid Vote - a validator (secondary checker) is voting against a valid block (and | |
| wasting network resources) | |
| - Equivocation - a validator produces two or more of the same block or vote | |
| - GRANDPA and BEEFY Equivocation - a validator signs two or more votes in the same round on different chains | |
| - BABE Equivocation - a validator produces two or more blocks on the Relay Chain in the same time slot | |
| - Double Seconded Equivocation - within a backing group of 5 para-validators, at most 5 backed | |
| parablocks are possible. Each parablock requires exactly one seconded and at least two more valid | |
| votes from the five potential backers. This makes an upper bound on the number of parablocks the | |
| system has to deal with while still allowing some choice for relay chain block authors. Backers | |
| must decide which parablock to second, and they cannot second another. If another seconding vote | |
| is found, they will be punished (somewhat lightly as of now, but there is little to gain from | |
| this). All of this is made slightly more complicated with | |
| [asynchronous backing](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-async-backing){target=\_blank} as it is no longer one candidate per relay chain | |
| block as backers can back blocks "into the future" optimistically. See | |
| [this page](https://paritytech.github.io/polkadot-sdk/book/node/backing/statement-distribution.html#seconding-limit){target=\_blank} | |
| for more information | |
| - Seconded + Valid Equivocation - this happens when a malicious node first seconds something | |
| (takes absolute responsibility for it), and then only pretends to be someone who just said it is | |
| correct after someone else takes responsibility. That is a straight-up lie (equivocation). A node | |
| could use that tactic to escape responsibility, but once the system notices the two conflicting | |
| votes, the offense is reported |
| having other inactive or waiting nominations. They are also not mitigated by the validator operator | ||
| running separate nodes; each node is considered its own entity for slashing purposes. | ||
|
|
||
| !!!info "Multiple Active Nominations" |
|
|
||
| #### Slash for Equivocation | ||
|
|
||
| The following levels of offense are |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
defined is not self explanatory. Put the link in a better word or rephrase the sentence
| - Level 1: Isolated equivocation slashes a minimal amount of the stake. | ||
| - Level 2: Misconducts unlikely to be accidental but do not harm the network's security to any large | ||
| extent. Examples include concurrent equivocation or isolated cases of unjustified voting in | ||
| [GRANDPA](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-consensus#finality-gadget-grandpa){target=\_blank}. Slashes a moderately small amount of the stake. | ||
| - Level 3: misconduct that poses severe security or monetary risk to the system or mass collusion. | ||
| Slashes all or most of the stake behind the validator. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - Level 1: Isolated equivocation slashes a minimal amount of the stake. | |
| - Level 2: Misconducts unlikely to be accidental but do not harm the network's security to any large | |
| extent. Examples include concurrent equivocation or isolated cases of unjustified voting in | |
| [GRANDPA](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-consensus#finality-gadget-grandpa){target=\_blank}. Slashes a moderately small amount of the stake. | |
| - Level 3: misconduct that poses severe security or monetary risk to the system or mass collusion. | |
| Slashes all or most of the stake behind the validator. | |
| - Level 1 - isolated equivocation slashes a minimal amount of the stake | |
| - Level 2 - misconducts unlikely to be accidental but do not harm the network's security to any large | |
| extent. Examples include concurrent equivocation or isolated cases of unjustified voting in | |
| [GRANDPA](https://wiki.polkadot.network/docs/learn-consensus#finality-gadget-grandpa){target=\_blank}. Slashes a moderately small amount of the stake | |
| - Level 3 - misconduct that poses severe security or monetary risk to the system or mass collusion. | |
| Slashes all or most of the stake behind the validator |
| 1. Cloning a server, i.e., copying all contents when migrating to new hardware. This action should | ||
| be avoided. If an image is desired, it should be taken before keys are generated. | ||
| 2. High Availability (HA) Systems – Equivocation can occur if there are any concurrent operations, | ||
| either when a failed server restarts or if a false positive event results in both servers being | ||
| online simultaneously. HA systems are to be treated with extreme caution and are not advised. | ||
| 3. The keystore folder is copied when attempting to copy a database from one instance to another. | ||
| It is important to note that equivocation slashes occur with a single incident. This can happen | ||
| if duplicated keystores are used for only a few seconds. A slash can result in losing nominators | ||
| and funds, removal from the Thousand Validator Programme, and reputational damage. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| 1. Cloning a server, i.e., copying all contents when migrating to new hardware. This action should | |
| be avoided. If an image is desired, it should be taken before keys are generated. | |
| 2. High Availability (HA) Systems – Equivocation can occur if there are any concurrent operations, | |
| either when a failed server restarts or if a false positive event results in both servers being | |
| online simultaneously. HA systems are to be treated with extreme caution and are not advised. | |
| 3. The keystore folder is copied when attempting to copy a database from one instance to another. | |
| It is important to note that equivocation slashes occur with a single incident. This can happen | |
| if duplicated keystores are used for only a few seconds. A slash can result in losing nominators | |
| and funds, removal from the Thousand Validator Programme, and reputational damage. | |
| 1. Cloning a server, i.e., copying all contents when migrating to new hardware. This action should | |
| be avoided. If an image is desired, it should be taken before keys are generated | |
| 2. High Availability (HA) Systems – equivocation can occur if there are any concurrent operations, | |
| either when a failed server restarts or if a false positive event results in both servers being | |
| online simultaneously. HA systems are to be treated with extreme caution and are not advised | |
| 3. The keystore folder is copied when attempting to copy a database from one instance to another. | |
| It is important to note that equivocation slashes occur with a single incident. This can happen | |
| if duplicated keystores are used for only a few seconds. A slash can result in losing nominators | |
| and funds, removal from the Thousand Validator Programme, and reputational damage |
| - A nominator can nominate multiple validators and be slashed via any of them. | ||
| - Until slashed, the stake is reused from era to era. Nominating with N coins for E eras in a row | ||
| does not mean you have N\*E coins to be slashed - you've only ever had N. | ||
| - Slashable offenses can be found after the fact and out of order. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - A nominator can nominate multiple validators and be slashed via any of them. | |
| - Until slashed, the stake is reused from era to era. Nominating with N coins for E eras in a row | |
| does not mean you have N\*E coins to be slashed - you've only ever had N. | |
| - Slashable offenses can be found after the fact and out of order. | |
| - A nominator can nominate multiple validators and be slashed via any of them | |
| - Until slashed, the stake is reused from era to era. Nominating with N coins for E eras in a row | |
| does not mean you have N\*E coins to be slashed - you've only ever had N | |
| - Slashable offenses can be found after the fact and out of order |
| - On-chain disabling lasts for a whole era and stops validators from block authoring, backing, and | ||
| initiating a dispute. | ||
| - Off-chain disabling lasts for a session, is caused by losing a dispute, and stops validators from | ||
| initiating a dispute. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - On-chain disabling lasts for a whole era and stops validators from block authoring, backing, and | |
| initiating a dispute. | |
| - Off-chain disabling lasts for a session, is caused by losing a dispute, and stops validators from | |
| initiating a dispute. | |
| - On-chain disabling lasts for a whole era and stops validators from block authoring, backing, and | |
| initiating a dispute | |
| - Off-chain disabling lasts for a session, is caused by losing a dispute, and stops validators from | |
| initiating a dispute |
