Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Untie staking from genesis #4422

Closed
4 tasks
sabau opened this issue May 27, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed
4 tasks

Untie staking from genesis #4422

sabau opened this issue May 27, 2019 · 7 comments
Assignees

Comments

@sabau
Copy link
Contributor

sabau commented May 27, 2019

Summary

Currently the staking module seems vital to boot any dapp built on top of the SDK

Problem Definition

Would be nice to remove this necessity, have the genesis and all the basic features working without specific modules, or modules that not every app should use.

@fedekunze @rigelrozanski @alexanderbez @jackzampolin


For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged
  • Contributor assigned/self-assigned
@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor

rigelrozanski commented May 27, 2019

As the code is already structured you should be able to get rid of the staking module entirely when dealing with app genesis. however you should simply not be importing any genutil client code that has to do with genesis-transactions (which are dependant on staking currently) - that abstraction will come soon to allow for custom staking for gen-txs, but further refactors will be required

@alexanderbez
Copy link
Contributor

Hmmm, how do you plan on providing the validator set to tendermint? Just statically defined/POA style?

@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah the expected types for this decoupled genutil will need to have certain key information pertaining to pubkey/power which will input into tendermint

@fedekunze
Copy link
Collaborator

I believe most parts of this issue was resolved with the module gen refactor. I can tackle the rest once #4757 is merged

@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor

@fedekunze I've broken out part of this issue to #4771 which should be taken on independantly (and isn't a particularly easy task I don't think)

@fedekunze
Copy link
Collaborator

@rigelrozanski I was thinking of using expected interfaces/dummies for the staking MsgCreateValidator instead. But as your approach is more general I guess we can then close this issue

@rigelrozanski
Copy link
Contributor

roger

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants