The crypto world is well known for its countless dramatic episodes, and the most recent one revolves around the dispute over consensus. At the heart of this dispute lies a proposal to “punish” two validators within Cosmos’ ecosystem by voting them out with “tombstoning” and “slashing.”
The Neutron consumer chain, which is protected by the Cosmos network, recently experienced an issue known as “double-signing,” with two validators involved. Usually, this would lead to automatic slashing and ‘tombstoning,’ which means that those nodes would be removed from validation forever. However, since Neutron uses “Replicated Security” for protection, a community vote must be conducted instead; this voting event is Prop #818, and it will end on August 23.
Blockworks Research Analyst David Rodriguez examined the uproar and emphasized the incident on the 0xResearch podcast. Validators were anticipated to use the most recent version of Neutron during a rolling upgrade. However, the block was accidentally “double-signed” by two validators, which is a serious error.
Because consumer chain technology is still in its infancy, Rodriguez noted, penalties like slashing and tombstoning are not yet automated. This raised questions about punishing validators for unintentional actions. Rodriguez proposed that the Cosmos Hub community decide whether or not slashing is necessary.
Despite the apparent lack of malicious intent on the part of the validators, some community members support the idea that “code is law.”
When it comes to the Cosmos Hub, double-signing by a validator will be punished through automatic slashing and tombstoning. This begs the question of why there isn’t a similar approach taken with consumer chains. The difference between the two is causing validators to think twice about validating for consumer chains because the risk they take on does not match up with what they get in return.
Rodriguez stressed that it is important to set an example where validators should be penalized and potentially compensated by the blockchain network. He suggested that a voting system be used to reinstate the validators into the group of validators after slashing and removing them, emphasizing how significant it is to create a social standard.
Rodriguez cautioned that this incident may ultimately affect how people view replicated security and interchain security. Automated slashing is being upgraded, but the current incident takes place while Replicated Security is still developing.
Ren Yu Kong, a Blockworks Research analyst, suggested erring on the side of cutting first and then establishing a committee to monitor the cuts they should be reversed. He emphasized the need for immediate cutting for systems that rely on crypto-economic security.
Rodriguez regretted the overly optimistic approach that relied on validators’ honest behavior and let social consensus determine the result. He argued that it would have been wiser to “slash first, ask questions later.” He questioned the consistency of applying these rules to other Cosmos chains, given that double-signing results in immediate slashing at the Cosmos Hub.
Validators have been left questioning the potential dangers of validating blockchain networks used by consumers, which has triggered fears over whether such activities can be successful. The results of this conundrum could bring about immense changes in terms of how blockchain security and consensus models are viewed.