So far there are only two consumer chains, Neutron and Stride. @lexa @jtremback you don’t have the information about all testnet names for Neutron and Stride before joining as consumer chains? With this information there can be certainty whether some old Neutron or Stride testnets had the same chain-id and whether there is risk about this or not, and if there was indeed some old testnet with same chain-id then all validators should be informed/reminded about this immediately.
Does this only affect @serejandmyself and @pupmos? Because so far there was only one consumer chain double sign equivocation proposal on the Cosmos Hub.
In the provider chain, both downtime and double sign slashing happen automatically, there is no equivocation governance proposal. So how does this upgrade have anything to do with provider chain slashings if this is only related to removing double sign equivocation proposals for consumer chains?
This doesn’t seem correct. Let’s assume today 11th November Pupmos and Citizen Cosmos do a key reassignment, until the 2th December the previous key would still be held in state (21 days). If this v14 upgrade is implemented before the 2th December, then they would be tombstoned? You said ‘if a new key is assigned, any equivocation that occured more than 21 days ago cannot be punished’ but the double signing on Neutron of Citizen Cosmos and Pupmos happened more than 21 days ago, and in this example even if they do key reassigment today if v14 is implemented before 21 days from today they would be tombstoned? Could you clarfiy this @jtremback?