chore: move CIP 29 & 30 to review #258
Conversation
tac0turtle
force-pushed
the
marko/bump_review
branch
from
ea2a254 to
78327fe
Compare
|
markdown-lint failing |
rootulp
left a comment
rootulp
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CIP-30 looks ready to move to Review.
I found a few issues with CIP-29. LMK if you want me to address them. They seem worth addressing prior to moving to review.
| | author | Dean Eigenmann ([@decanus](https://github.com/decanus)), Marko Baricevic ([@tac0turtle](https://github.com/tac0turtle)) | | ||
| | discussions-to | [Inflation Reduction Discussion Forum](https://forum.celestia.org/t/cip-reduce-inflation/1896) | | ||
| | status | Draft | | ||
| | status | Review | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm re-reading CIP-29. I left this on the original PR but:
while other solutions have not been able to scale in a decentralized manner
seems incorrect and unwarranted. This claim isn't defended in the rest of the CIP so IMO it should be removed.
Remove the use of "we" in the spec section.
The spec section has a redundant line which can be removed
The only modification is to the base inflation parameter and the disinflation parameter; both drop by 33% on the next upgrade leading to lower yet sustainable inflation immediately
This section can be moved from spec to test cases:
Implementers MUST ensure:
The chain upgrade process includes the new inflation parameters without disrupting block production.
The new schedule is included in the next major version release to reflect the updated inflation rates on-chain in the next app version (v4).
This CIP is backwards incompatible and it must be included in a breaking release. This section needs to be updated.
No backward compatibility issues are anticipated.
The inflation parameters are applied in v4 so year 3 seems like a typo here:
Ensure that when the updated inflation parameters are applied at Year 3, the on-chain inflation rate reflects the new values instead of the old schedule.
The graph in the bottom is incorrect. The blue line does not reflect 50% reduced deflation because then the slope would be flatter than 33% deflation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it looks like these are still outstanding cc @tac0turtle
This CIP is backwards incompatible and it must be included in a breaking release. This section needs to be updated.
No backward compatibility issues are anticipated.
The inflation parameters are applied in v4 so year 3 seems like a typo here:
Ensure that when the updated inflation parameters are applied at Year 3, the on-chain inflation rate reflects the new values instead of the old schedule.
The graph in the bottom is incorrect. The blue line does not reflect 50% reduced deflation because then the slope would be flatter than 33% deflation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The inflation parameters are applied in v4 so year 3 seems like a typo here:
Ensure that when the updated inflation parameters are applied at Year 3, the on-chain inflation rate reflects the new values instead of the old schedule.
This is a test case, i dont think it implies the change is at year 3. I can reword it though
3 participants
Overview