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

"Red Wedding" (first GoS hard fork) master to-do list #3079

Closed
6 of 7 tasks
cwgoes opened this issue Dec 11, 2018 · 19 comments
Closed
6 of 7 tasks

"Red Wedding" (first GoS hard fork) master to-do list #3079

cwgoes opened this issue Dec 11, 2018 · 19 comments

Comments

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor

cwgoes commented Dec 11, 2018

This hard fork will be carried out with use of the zero-height export mechanism introduced in #2827.

Tendermint changes

SDK changes

State changes

Port script at cosmos/game-of-stakes#260

  • Multiply Atom amounts by ~10e18 for "micro-Atoms"

cc @faboweb @alexanderbez @zmanian

@rfunduk
Copy link

rfunduk commented Dec 11, 2018

I may be misunderstanding something here but if the current values are 'atoms', then wouldn't multiplying by 10^18 result in 'attoatoms'? Seems a bit overkill! Microatoms would be 10^6 no? 1 million microatoms = 1 atom.

@cwgoes cwgoes changed the title First GoS hard fork master to-do list "Red Wedding" (first GoS hard fork) master to-do list Dec 11, 2018
@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

afaik, atoms are a unit for which 10^9 of these units corresponds to a single atom.

Because of the fee distribution and inflation model, we need to make sure there is a mechanism in place that allows delegates to still get rewards when they only hold a very tiny portion of a validator's stake. The end result is us needing ~10e18

I'm sure someone else can elaborate further.

@rfunduk
Copy link

rfunduk commented Dec 11, 2018

Are you saying that the current values are already 'nanoatoms' then, basically? And so after this issue is resolved getting the 'atom' value will require dividing by 10^27? There's actually not even a name for that it seems -- 1 septillionth, 10^24, would be yoctoatoms, but that as far as the names go 😅

I guess ultimately I'm just trying to make it clear because I will be needing to implement interfaces that accurately display (and name) amounts and so on.

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

No, afaik, the current values are not nanoatoms.

@rfunduk
Copy link

rfunduk commented Dec 11, 2018

Hmm ok but you said:

afaik, atoms are a unit for which 10^9 of these units corresponds to a single atom.

Can you clarify what you meant by that?

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

They will be*.

@rfunduk
Copy link

rfunduk commented Dec 11, 2018

I'm truly sorry if I'm being dense here 😉 ... but if it will be nanoatoms, that's 10^9. This issue describes doing 10^18 which would be attoatoms, but it calls them microatoms...

Clarity on this is super important before I try to update our interfaces. I believe you that you need more precision and so on, all good. So I'm really just looking for specific confirmation and details here -- when this launches what would I divide the values by to get 'atoms'.

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor Author

cwgoes commented Dec 11, 2018

@rfunduk You are quite right to be precise - I intended "micro-Atoms" to simply reference a smaller denomination - we haven't decided exactly what that will be.

I agree that 10e18 is more precision than required. Probably 10e6 or 10e8 is enough. We should see if there are any particular numeric types we would want to support (e.g. uint64, and assuming some reasonable total supply limitations) and decide accordingly, at which point we will adopt the standard SI prefix for the minimum unit (although we might have an additional name a la "wei" as well).

@ValarDragon
Copy link
Contributor

Micro atoms should not be in game of stakes, as we will overflow valid power amounts.

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor Author

cwgoes commented Dec 11, 2018

Micro atoms should not be in game of stakes, as we will overflow valid power amounts.

Then we should fix that too - you're referring to #2513, right?

@ValarDragon
Copy link
Contributor

That is what I was referring to! I guess this gets to how close we want game of stakes to get to the hub launch code. I am agnostic on this, but micro-atom inclusion does require #2513.

@cwgoes cwgoes mentioned this issue Dec 14, 2018
5 tasks
@kevlubkcm
Copy link
Contributor

kevlubkcm commented Dec 18, 2018

micro-atom -> quark?
avoid stepping on reserved metric system names 😄

@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor

plz quarks! if you do the math a quark on average is 10^-9 in size from an atom so it's kind of perfect

@jackzampolin
Copy link
Member

Going to close this as 0.30.0 is out!

@faboweb
Copy link
Contributor

faboweb commented Jan 25, 2019

quarks didn't happen?

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor Author

cwgoes commented Jan 25, 2019

Quarks didn't happen?

That doesn't actually require any SDK changes I think - @zmanian could do it when we create the new GoS genesis file (just a community testnet right now).

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

Not perse, but there are a few places (e.g. tests and local testnet) that could be updated to use quarks instead of the small amounts they do now.

@faboweb
Copy link
Contributor

faboweb commented Jan 28, 2019

quarks also imply post processing all outputs in CLI and REST endpoints to still show atoms imo, so I think it will require some patching of the SDK.

@cwgoes
Copy link
Contributor Author

cwgoes commented Jan 28, 2019

quarks also imply post processing all outputs in CLI and REST endpoints to still show atoms imo, so I think it will require some patching of the SDK.

That's true, but we can push those changes in a non-breaking release.

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

No branches or pull requests

8 participants