My electricity meter reader in Rawalpindi got a warning notice last month for skipping our street on his rounds, nothing severe, just a formal note in his file. I assumed Dusk treats provisioner misbehavior the same flat way, one warning system, penalties scale up the same regardless of what you actually did wrong.
That's not how it works. Dusk splits faults into two clearly separate categories with completely different consequences. A minor fault, like failing to broadcast a candidate block when you were chosen as generator, results in suspension and soft slashing. A major fault, like broadcasting an invalid block, double voting, or putting out two different candidate blocks for the same iteration, triggers hard slashing instead.
The distinction that actually reframed this for me is what soft slashing versus hard slashing actually does. Soft slashing just locks a portion of your stake, which lowers your weight in future sortition rounds but doesn't destroy anything. Hard slashing straight up burns part of your stake, permanently, with the burned amount increasing based on how severe or repeated the fault is. One is a timeout. The other is a real financial loss with no way back.
What the whitepaper doesn't specify is the exact percentage or DUSK amount burned per major fault tier. Without that number I can't tell anyone how costly a specific violation actually is in real terms.
The real test for DUSK is whether hard slashing stays severe enough to actually deter double voting once stake concentration grows.
Does anyone know the real burn percentages Dusk applies for major faults?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
That's not how it works. Dusk splits faults into two clearly separate categories with completely different consequences. A minor fault, like failing to broadcast a candidate block when you were chosen as generator, results in suspension and soft slashing. A major fault, like broadcasting an invalid block, double voting, or putting out two different candidate blocks for the same iteration, triggers hard slashing instead.
The distinction that actually reframed this for me is what soft slashing versus hard slashing actually does. Soft slashing just locks a portion of your stake, which lowers your weight in future sortition rounds but doesn't destroy anything. Hard slashing straight up burns part of your stake, permanently, with the burned amount increasing based on how severe or repeated the fault is. One is a timeout. The other is a real financial loss with no way back.
What the whitepaper doesn't specify is the exact percentage or DUSK amount burned per major fault tier. Without that number I can't tell anyone how costly a specific violation actually is in real terms.
The real test for DUSK is whether hard slashing stays severe enough to actually deter double voting once stake concentration grows.
Does anyone know the real burn percentages Dusk applies for major faults?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
