Cody Born
Cody Born
Thanks @siladu! It's not yet confirmed for any hardfork; I just put it in the Merge++ hardfork as a placeholder. Do you have a recommended practice for features like this...
Ready for a final review @siladu @atoulme. I think everything has been addressed.
Also, I've ran @snreynolds new [EIP1153-specific Ethereum tests](https://github.com/snreynolds/tests/tree/filler-tests) and they all pass.
> Also, considering (a) the merge is about to happen and (b) this EIP has not gone into "Eligible for Inclusion" (mostly due to no ACD call bandwidth) I'm inclined...
- Add calls to get PN type - Let validator community know about increased costs - Issue claim to be consumable by Valora - Claim should contain: - PN type...
Swapping this work with @alecps
Thanks for starting the discussion @aaronmboyd. I think this is a matter of perspective. One could view the existing validator reward to cover all services that a validator provides, including...
Thanks for the feedback Victor! > Attack on proposed slashing method I agree. It also doesn't solve for the case where an Attestation Service is partially available but still able...
That's a really good idea to protect the user experience @zviadm. I think this mechanism can work in conjunction with other incentive mechanisms. Without the incentive of slashing or additional...
@zviadm I agree that it'd be nice to untangle the incentives of running a validator and attestation service. This would also support non-validator attestation operators in the future. One downside...