Why the Shiba Doll Chain Bill 5 was rejected

background

The last ten to fifteen validators of the Chi Doll Chain have always been in fierce competition. As early as three weeks ago, the validators in the back had proposed to increase the number of validators. At that time, SF RES Land was also the last seat, as the stake was the greatest. Of course, the validators frequently participate in discussions.

After some discussion and learning (I wrote " Why You Should Delegate to a Lower Ranked Validator - Also on the Power of #8020Giveaway " to document my learning), I have a deeper understanding of how the entire blockchain works , I decided against increasing the validator quota. The main reason is that the Chi Doll Chain is too new, and there is no need to decide to increase the quota prematurely because more people can become validators. At the same time, as the number of validators increases, the transaction time will also increase accordingly, which will affect the user experience. However, some validators believe that the quota should be increased. I expected a referendum to resolve the dispute, so I presented a first draft of the motion at commonwealth . After the proposal, many validators continued to discuss, and finally some people agreed that the number of places could be increased by a small amount, such as adding five to ten, but they opposed a large increase. However, because the validator who wanted to increase the quota most decided not to fight for it anymore, the matter was finally settled.

After that, I was squeezed out of the active validator list, but it remained within 105. I struggled many times in my heart, trying to make a proposal for my own interests, and I believe it can be done. In the end, I still insisted that the number of validators should not be increased, so I did not propose a proposal, and I would just quit slowly. (suddenly resurrected later...but that's off topic)

Until recently, the SunFace.org staking service, a validator ranked outside 100, suddenly proposed Proposal 5, but the content of the proposal is extremely simple:

"Update max validators to 125, consider securing network even further and also give a chance to smaller yet reliable validators to participate in the network"

However, the proposal does not mention the side effects of increasing the most validators at all, such as an increase in transaction time (maybe 0.5-1 second). It also does not explain why increasing the number of validators improves the security of the network .

There must be reasons to oppose the motion

1. Many inactive validators don't know if they are still running their nodes <br class="smart">Have experienced previous validator competition, and many have also quit, but not everyone who quit is the same @ Responsible like an old cat , when he decides to leave the game, he will put his node in jail. Of these validators ranked 101-125, only three participated in discussions on Commonwealth and Discord. Whether they are still operating is really questionable.
   And Chihuahua's downtime jail time is 8 hours, that is, the whole group may have to endure more than ten validators not working at all for 8 hours.
2. Increasing the number of validators to 25 does not really help decentralization <br class="smart">De-neutralization, the most important thing is that the delegated coins are scattered among different validator nodes, and do not let the delegation concentrate on a few validators body. For example, don’t let the top five validators account for more than 33% of the total delegation. Chihuahua's #8020Giveaway does exactly that. Increasing the number of places to 25 will only allow the last-ranked validators to split the already few delegates. It does not constitute true decentralization.

Therefore, rashly increasing the number of validators will not simply help decentralization and improve network security, but will have side effects.

Other reasons for personal objection

1. Proposers are completely absent from discussions. Proposers do not participate in community discussions, which violates earlier consensus and never lobbied for community support. Personally, I don't appreciate this kind of proposal behavior.
2. Adhere to the previous position, thinking that it is too early at this stage, and there is no need to increase the quota. Instead, it is worth doing a decentralized delegation first.
3. The community (at least the validator community) has a preliminary consensus, and the number of validators can be increased by 5-10. This is enough for new validators to participate.

action

SF RES Land has voted against as a validator.

If you agree with the above point of view, please vote against (if you voted, you can vote again to change your choice). Please spread this information widely so that more people can oppose this motion together.

If you think you want to increase the number of validators, you can also consider raising an objection to this motion first, and then propose a number of 5-10 validators. I would like to deposit.

Discussion is welcome

I am Chihuahua validator SF RES Land , I hope to use Chihuahua to narrow the digital divide, welcome to support me
SF RES Land is Chihuahua Validator, striving for narrow the digital divide by Chihuahua. Please support me.

Delegate to SF RES Land:
1) https://chihuahua.omniflix.co/ Press Delegate to find SF RES Land
2) Use Delegate in Cosmostation app