-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Remote staking contract bare-bones #37
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Just some syntax / naming stuff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In general the logic looks good, except for claims.
A number of minor nit-picks, it would be good to clean this up, so we can merge it.
I will look at your other PR, but nice to rebase it on a cleaned/merged version of this
Addresses #13
This is just the most basic possible remote staking, with nothing fancy. It meant to address only the first item of #13 (comment).
No tests and no validator choice by design - splitting into separate PRs, smaller = easier to review.
Next step: add the possibility of choosing the validator to stake on passing a message when staking (#39).