-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
Improved stacking #211
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Improved stacking #211
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for adding this Friedger! I look forward to the proposed changes going live.
Added some minor comments about typos.
In the SIP I would also like to read how a transition from PoX-4 to PoX-5 would influence the sBTC protocol and how potential risks or other complexities are mitigated and/or dealt with.
## Transition to PoX-5 | ||
|
||
A new PoX contract requires that all stacked Stacks tokens are unlocked and Stackers need to lock their Stacks token again using the new PoX-5 contract. The process shall be similar to the previous upgrades of the PoX contract. PoX-4 contract shall be deactivated and PoX-5 contract shall be activated at the beginning of epoch 3.2 All locked Stacks tokens shall be unlocked automatically 1 block after the beginning of epoch 3.2. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this section should be a bit more elaborate because it should cover potential complexities/risks related to sBTC and its dependence on PoX.
There are still a few open design questions. Main discussion so far should happen on https://forum.stacks.org/t/remove-cool-down-cycle-in-stacking/17899/13 |
This PR adds a SIP specifying