I see this increase the risk of sybil attacks and if this propo comes true, I’m very sure the plan is up like 30 new validators 0% commission. now +13 have 0%commission, and this propo comes in hands for one 0% commission validator for tendermint team anyway. 
and if you see only 137 validators in total, so explain why 150 now? Sir @sunnya97 ty
150 is not a bad idea - it would give room for growth. Libra will start with 100 and evolve to 1000-1500 validators. https://github.com/libra/libra/tree/master/consensus
It doesn’t make much sense to have validators with min. $150.000 stake
1 Like
Allowing more validators is always the for the best and don’t entail negative consecuences. It won’t fix any current centralization issues but at least it will allow more validators, some that have already validated get in the validation pool again.
However, we should have in mind alternatives for improving decentralization and be ready to discuss them after this proposal passes.
1 Like
Is somebody willing to create a final proposal on this topic?
I can help you to understand.
If some validator from 100 actives is charging 0% Commission (today 12%) and want open more slots to 150 or 300 meanwhile today only have 138 prospects.
This validator like is charging 0% commission = I understand this have today a bunch of ATOMS in a stake at 0% commission of course meanwhile is winning more Atoms can use this for open new validators 0% commission or other bigger. strategies are infinite when you are in the top of the chain.
This validator 0% commission has a big interest in open more validators 0% commission for banned other validators.
results in this validators are centralized more the voting power for 0% commission. So it’s one strategy for taking decision-based in Voting power x commission free.
this validator unless help Cosmos just interest the control of the network. just controlling the voting power.
and there is a lot more reason why is going to be more centralized when the problem is not solved with 100. in case that centralization is a problem.
If someone upload one propo for open slots to 150 my votes is yes, bc I see some validators friend in danger and for my point of view, if the only I can do for help this others validators meanwhile Cosmos is growing. Just that.
I have deleted my comment, because your argumentation is wrong in my opinion and therefore, I wanted to avoid this discussion.
150 validators won’t make it worse. All game-theoretic attacks working in a 150 validator set are also working for 100 validators.
I’m trying to decide if I should make this proposal now or wait for ParamChange proposals to make the upgrade using that. It would be a cool way to demonstrate the real live usage of a ParamChange. If we make and pass the proposal now, the change wouldn’t happen until the next hard fork anyways, so waiting for ParamChange proposals, really just delays the increase by 3 weeks. What are y’alls thoughts?
1 Like
Definitely a good way to test the new proposal types. Hope you’ll wait.
Leave them like that or increase the Max Validators to 1000
Why? - They will make a huge advertisement, also… will slow down the network few seconds, and after that a kind of lightning network sub-chain will appear and the whole ecosystem will flourish. Open the pandora box or don’t do anything.
1000 has not been tested yet… this increase would be too steep.
I agree to increase validator to 125 for better decentralisation as well as road map for increasing validator.
Could this be a good platform to organize competing ideas in a streamlined fashion?
Made this an example:
1 Like