Reading time saved: 4 minutes
4 replies, 690 views, 16 likes
The BoLD paper's staking protocol is being actively discussed, with a focus on the permissionless validation and the staking requirements for defenders in multi-level challenges, where only one stake per level is needed and sub-challenges can have smaller "mini-stakes." The community is engaged and seeking to understand the protocol's complexities, though concerns about its potential for exploitation and the complexity itself are noted, with the deletion of a post by Sam.ng6 leaving some aspects of the discussion unclear.
The discussion revolves around the BoLD paper's staking protocol, focusing on the permissionlessness of validation and the required number of stakes for defenders in a multi-level setting. The conversation was initiated by GCdePaula1 who presented a scenario where attackers might force defenders to place a new stake for each sub-challenge by creating multiple top-level edges. DZack232 and Edfelten4 clarified that only one stake from an honest party is necessary per challenge level and that stakes for sub-challenges can be smaller, referred to as "mini-stakes". The discussion also touched upon the delays caused by invalid sub-challenges and the overall complexity of the protocol.
The community is actively engaged, with GCdePaula1,3,5 asking insightful questions and DZack232 and Edfelten4 providing detailed answers. The community shows a strong interest in understanding the staking mechanism's intricacies, particularly how "mini-stakes" scale with nested challenges. The level of interaction indicates a collective effort to comprehend the complexities of the BoLD paper's staking protocol.
We have not been able to determine whether this will be positive or negative:
Posted 4 months ago
Last reply 4 months ago
Summary updated 9 days ago
Last updated 08/12 04:40