Was thinking about this for quite a while. Prove me wrong.
Assume, i’m a MN owner, i stake 10M XDC. Run my standby node and shut down the node software after a few days until the next reward time.
Note: Standby node doesn’t participate in consensus or block creation. It’s just standby for 108 validators.
Is that fair to get rewarded as much as another standby node which has 99% up all time:
If yes, why?
If not, how to verify?
What slashing mechanism are in place for lazy standby node?
Hi Beny,
This post implies that there are no checks and balances in the code for standby nodes that go offline. My belief when I read the white papers is that there is a mechanism in place to slash nodes that are not online. Unless the slashing only implies that validators are the only ones penalized for not being online. If so then we have identified a gap that needs addressing. If standby nodes can only be online, lets say 5 days during the beginning of the moth, and then shutdown to receive full rewards, then that means the veriication process needs to be revised. Yes, it is unethical if people are actually doing this because they are taking advantage of a problem with how node activity is verified for rewards. There should be a way to check if nodes are online and if they’re not online they should be penalized. Validators are online and if they are not when it’s time for them to verify the block then it is slashed, (simplified way of explaining the process). So why dont we check for standby nodes each epoch? If they are not online, start deducting each epoch they are not online. With the upcoming automation of rewards, this shoudl be implemented to check for all nodes, not just validators and each epoch they are not online, they wont get rewarded. This needs to be transparent and easily identified by both the node operator and those behind the protocol by means of UI that’s easily understood with timestamps etc.
To answer your questions. Yes, we should create a slashing mechanism just like we have for the validators.