Thoughts on increasing the number of active validators from 130 to 150?

General
1

Let me state this clearly I have no experience or knowledge on technical aspects of blockchain technology that’s why this is not a propsal rather a post to discuss a future proposal on increasing the maximum number of active validators.

Last time Do Kwon proposed increasing the validators from a 100 to 130 because Cosmos Hub was able to run smoothly even with 130 validators. So what about increasing active validators from 130 to 150? From what I have read Cosmos Hub is functioning perfectly even with 150 validators.

What is the benefit of increasing the active validator set?
Same as the last time which are -

  • Having more validators is value accretive to the network.
  • Future projects which want to can become an active validator without requiring a large amount of Luna to become active. This issue was seen in Coinhall where there validator was inactive for the first two days because they were unable to get enough Luna to become an active validator.
  • The Cosmos Hub has been running with a comparable no of validators in the active set for many months without issues.

If from this discussion we can come to the conclusion that we can increase the number of active validators without major issues I suggest someone more technical to make a post to propose the same.

1 Like
2

I’m surprised this didn’t get more eyes on it. The Cosmos Hub has increased to 175 now and everything is going just fine.

How do people feel about expanding the active set? Entering the active set is pretty much unobtainable by anyone that doesn’t have massive capital backing since its about $19 Million to get into the active set at the moment.

3

I think yes if anything 150 is even more safe now as they are running just fine with 175.

People like Larry did say how it’s requires a very large capital to run a validator.

I would personally like this to be pushed but there seems to be no interest for it at least going by my proposal.

4

I think it’s just a matter of getting this in front of the right people. Maybe even trying to get someone like Larry to take note of this and bring more eyes to the conversation.

5

The deal here is that it will increase block time by 1.1 seconds to move from 130-150

We consider the drop this would create in transactions per second to be unacceptable.

6

Okay that answer makes a lot more sense. So you are trying to keep the block time around 6 seconds.

Do you think there is any other way to slowely increase the validator set without increasing the block times by too much? Or does TFL have any other plan for fixing the high delegation for being part of the active validator set?

7

If we do, and there are some small items we are working toward, it is a stop gap.

The solution must be the IAVL trees that underpin consensus. We are working with the cosmos team to rectify.
It is a core feature of the chain, so chain upgrade will be required when the issue is solved.
Once that logic tree is replaced there shouldn’t be a limit on quantity.

3 Likes