dankrad

> Not sure why you would want to encrypt the validator key with the withdrawal key, given the withdrawal key is out of your control. Because the withdrawal key owner...

So thinking about this I still think it's a good idea to allow this. The main argument against it seems to be that "at some point in the future the...

> Although I like the idea of the additional functionality, I think this is starting to overload the function of the withdrawal key; it's moving away from the idea of...

> which would _not_ be a "stop" action, only ever sent once in an emergency. If we want this type of functionality we may be better off considering the roles...

Aha, my assumption was that all whistleblowers in the same committees are always mixed in, and we just adjust the probabilities low enough that it would lead to an appropriate...

> Is that over-engineering? What's difficult about just using a seed from a day after the block got included on-chain? Actually, I realized that we keep RANDAO seeds around for...

Upgrading pip did not help for me with openvino: ```(venv) df@Kepler:~/test/stable_diffusion.openvino$ pip install -r requirements.txt Collecting numpy==1.19.5 Using cached numpy-1.19.5.zip (7.3 MB) Installing build dependencies ... done Getting requirements to...

There may be reasons when you want to top up your validator so that the total amount sent is >32 ETH: 1. Your validator balance might be getting dangerously close...

I absolutely agree that it would be a good idea to warn a user from the deposit interface, if possible. Was just pointing out that implementing that limit in the...

Why does it need to be bijective? An injective function would be enough, right? I think it is fairly easy to prove that SSZ is injective