Jeff Burdges

The primary reasons to do this is actually multi-signatures schemes, like OLAF, FROST, etc, which doesn't matter if you're not doing those. At the moment I almost wanted it just...

If structural records https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1999#issuecomment-300719671 came back eventually then they could provide the type of `v`.

> The honest validator will in that case not cast his own vote and will not gossip it further We de facto treat the dispute by the disabled validator as...

We'd likely want some mechanism by which you could promise that a supertrait could not conflict too, but I'm unsure if the same relative lifetime "algebra" siffices there.

As I understand it, the poorly named "statement store" exists to establish connections between users, meaning it should be ephemeral and targeted. Yet, all github discussion of the "statement store"...

> If we want this, we will require to have onion routing/mixnet to communicate with these mailboxes. No. That'd be cool of course, but we only need either (a) some...

> We already have another case where we need to store data for 2–7 days. Ok, example? Anyways, how does this differ from the existing DHT or other DHTs? DHTs...

I do not have strong feelings on increasing PoV sizes near-term, but certianly if we put gluttons on kusama then it's nice to be able to pressure them properly. >...

We think 100MB/s = 1Gb/s has good odds of handling 15 approvals per valudators then? Or do we think there needs to be a lot more slack somehow?

The contract should only be included once per PoV, because PoV state proofs should always work like that, so the collator would've denser blocks if they could select many executions...