Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update EIP-908: Fix Typo in eip-908.md #9210

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update EIP-908: Fix Typo in eip-908.md #9210

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion EIPS/eip-908.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ See [here](https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf#subsection.2.1) for an analysis

> The word “activity” in the phrase Proof of Activity emphasizes the point that only active stakeholders who maintain a full online node get rewarded, in exchange for the vital services that they provide for the network. This stands in contrast to earlier Proof of Stake schemes in which offline stake can accumulate weight over time, and may ultimately be utilized in double-spending attacks.

We can also incentivize full nodes to propagate transactions and to store transactions or state, in addtition to verifying them. While these first two incentivizations are outside the scope of this EIP, there are proposals [here](https://ethresear.ch/t/incentivizing-a-robust-p2p-network-relay-layer/1438) and [here](https://ethresear.ch/t/incentivizing-full-state-nodes/1640), respectively.
We can also incentivize full nodes to propagate transactions and to store transactions or state, in addition to verifying them. While these first two incentivizations are outside the scope of this EIP, there are proposals [here](https://ethresear.ch/t/incentivizing-a-robust-p2p-network-relay-layer/1438) and [here](https://ethresear.ch/t/incentivizing-full-state-nodes/1640), respectively.

Implementing this as a layer 2 solution may not ensure the sustainability of the protocol, since not everyone would use it; if the protocol doesn't have any cost for full nodes to validate transactions, then people will take advantage of that and not use the layer 2 solution. It seems that you should at least have the part where the reward is provided in protocol, but then that and the user agent signature doesn't really add anything else to the protocol, so doing some part in-protocol and some part e.g. the verification or a verification-game off-protocol could be done, but it's already done in protocol. Note also that some computationally expensive tasks are too challenging to feasibly do in protocol, e.g. due to not fitting in the gas limit, could be done with Truebit, where verifiers have an incentive.

Expand Down
Loading