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.

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

Ensure a legacy validator can't accept new delegations #1883

Closed
rigelrozanski opened this issue Jul 30, 2018 · 6 comments · Fixed by #2176 or #2198
Closed

Ensure a legacy validator can't accept new delegations #1883

rigelrozanski opened this issue Jul 30, 2018 · 6 comments · Fixed by #2176 or #2198

Comments

@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor

When a validator unbonds it's last self delegation token it should no longer be able to accept new delegators - this said, the validator object still needs to persist as the existing delegators need to be able to withdraw any tokens they still have with this (now-unbonded/unbonding) validator.

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Jul 30, 2018

As in, we always want to enforce a self bond greater than zero?

@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor Author

well, yes and no - this is going to be a funny one - because we need to have validators with zero voting power for launch specifically - BUT I think how we can accomplish this is be only checking when the self-delegation is unbonding. so at launch we can have validators with no self-delegation who still accept new delegations, which is fine, but as soon as sending is enabled, and the presumably self-delegate to themselves, at that point, if they unbond their last self delegated atom, they would be barred from accepting new delegations.

It's effectively a way of signalling that the validator is shutting down

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Jul 30, 2018

I guess a zero self-bond validator would have no reason to un-self-bond, so we can safely use it as a signaling mechanism - cool - implementation proposal seems reasonable.

@alexanderbez alexanderbez added the S:blocked Status: Blocked label Aug 22, 2018
@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

alexanderbez commented Aug 22, 2018

Blocked on #1676

@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor Author

is this actually blocked on 1676?

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

@rigelrozanski I tagged the wrong issue -- my bad.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants