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

Block reward ratio is Quai/Qi, should be Qi/Quai #339

Open
jshorish opened this issue Sep 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Block reward ratio is Quai/Qi, should be Qi/Quai #339

jshorish opened this issue Sep 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@jshorish
Copy link
Contributor

In the results DataFrame (e.g. df available in the controller notebooks), the column "Block Reward Ratio" contains the ratio of the proposed block rewards as Quai / Qi. But the main results and visualizations rely upon e.g. kQi / kQuai, etc., and so this ratio should be updated to be Qi / Quai, i.e. its inverse.

(This is likely an artifact of the earlier required switch from Qi to Quai for the controller update parameter.)

@SeanMcOwen
Copy link
Collaborator

@jshorish Would you be ok with me putting to a later issue/next block of work? A few things run off the ratio (and flip it with 1/X depending on which side is needed) and I would worry about introducing any bugs this late. If you feel strongly on it I can still do it, just want to be cautious.

It might have also come that way from the original documentation I was reading.

@jshorish
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SeanMcOwen Completely up to you--I noted the issue when trying to plot the "Block Reward Ratio" directly from the DataFrame and finding results exactly opposite those expected :-). So we can address if they raise it, otherwise no problem to defer if it's entangled in other areas.

Just for completeness, which original documentation referred to the ratio as quai/qi? I'm thinking this was the original research arc before the Quai team requested that kQuai was the controller's update parameter, but if there was any other communication from them would be good to know--thx in advance!

@SeanMcOwen
Copy link
Collaborator

@jshorish I don't remember exactly, just meant that likely I took it from one of the original documents and things changed since then!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants