| fip | title | author | discussions-to | status | type | category (*only required for Standard Track) | created | requires (*optional) | replaces (*optional) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<to be assigned> |
On-Chain Pool |
Brian Nguyen (@nad010286) |
Draft |
<Technical (Core, Networking, Interface, Informational)> |
<Core | Networking | Interface > |
2020-09-25 |
<FIP number(s)> |
<FIP number(s)> |
Many small miners are worry that we will not earn anything during mainnet. And creating a pool like BTC and ETH like very hard currently in Filecoin due to technical complexity. I have this idea and want to ask if its possible to implement. So the idea is on-chain option for miner to create group (new actor?). Anyone can join a group but limit to 1 group each miner. Group power is total power of its members. Once solo miner joins a group, he doesnt earn reward as single miner anymore but get reward share from group. Rewards splitted automatically of course. Group power should not be more than 50% total network power. If it happens, miners get drop out automatically as last come, first out till power level meets criteria.
A short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
The motivation is critical for FIPs that want to change the Filecoin protocol. It should clearly explain why the existing protocol specification is inadequate to address the problem that the FIP solves. FIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations for any of the current Filecoin implementations.
The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
All FIPs that introduce backwards incompatibilities must include a section describing these incompatibilities and their severity. The FIP must explain how the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities. FIP submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility treatise may be rejected outright.
Test cases for an implementation are mandatory for FIPs that are affecting consensus changes. Other FIPs can choose to include links to test cases if applicable.
All FIPs must contain a section that discusses the security implications/considerations relevant to the proposed change. Include information that might be important for security discussions, surfaces risks and can be used throughout the life cycle of the proposal. E.g. include security-relevant design decisions, concerns, important discussions, implementation-specific guidance and pitfalls, an outline of threats and risks and how they are being addressed. FIP submissions missing the "Security Considerations" section will be rejected. A FIP cannot proceed to status "Final" without a Security Considerations discussion deemed sufficient by the reviewers.
The implementations must be completed before any core FIP is given status "Final", but it need not be completed before the FIP is accepted. While there is merit to the approach of reaching consensus on the specification and rationale before writing code, the principle of "rough consensus and running code" is still useful when it comes to resolving many discussions of API details.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.