Proposal for reducing: downtime_jail_duration


Hello. Everyone.

We recently found that downtime_jail_duration of IRISHub is much longer than that on Cosmos Hub .
The value on CosmosHub is 600000000000 ns, which are 10 minutes
And the value on IRIShub is 129600000000000 ns, which are 36 hours.

We are going to submit a proposal to update this value to 10 minutes, the value is 600000000000 ns.

Why do we need reduce this value?
We hope validators can get back as soon as possible if they jailed by some mistakes. here are opinions from @chris-remus and @syncnode

Is this value ok? any feedback are appreciated.


CosmosHUB的值为:600000000000 纳秒, 即:10分钟。
IRISHUB的值为:129600000000000 纳秒,即:36小时。

我们希望将这个值修改为10分钟,具体值为 600000000000 纳秒。

我们希望让验证人能尽快恢复正常工作。 大家可以看看之前 @chris-remus@syncnode 的意见。

你觉得这个值合适吗? 欢迎大家提供宝贵意见。


I think this proposal is great, and it’s helpful to the network stability


I believe this is a very big step forward, helping the validator to recover in the first time.


I think it’s necessary to increase the slash fraction downtime while reduce the downtime jail duration.i think this is necessary to the healthy of the mainnet


great proposal, we agree with it.


I think it’s necessary to increase the slash fraction downtime while reduce the downtime jail duration.i think this is necessary to the healthy of the mainnet

We still at the early stage, let keep this value for now.


While protecting validators from testing new things on the early stages should be respected, validators should also be aware of possible outcomes of certain actions, as things like ‘jail time’ or ‘slashing rate’ is a rule within the network which people agreed upon.

I think jail time which is much longer than the one in Cosmos is reasonable because if outcomes of certains actions are just light punishments, it is not a good incentive for people to behave for the good and security of the network.

If we are going to make changes to these numbers, I think a gradual approach is a safer way, since drastic change from 36 hours to 10 minutes may bring misbehaving participants to the network.
In fact, we believe that leaving the current number is a much secure decision for the network.


Two very important legal provisions in the pos system are the only legal ones that can destroy the basic system of pos, so a larger change requires more perspective. In fact, the conditions for the reduction due to downtime are very relaxed, so it may not be necessary to apply the item.
In order to reduce the time spent in prison, the value of downtime reduction triggering conditions needs to be more stringent.

Basically, I think the downtime slashing triggering conditions are relaxed so that participants who break even this can be irresponsible.


In my opinion, the Downtime Jail Duration is not the only way to punish the irresponsible participants, we have a Slash Fraction Downtime = 0.0003 which is 3 times than Cosmos.

So if a validator got jailed again and over again, he will only lose more than before.

But for the responsible participants who got jailed unfortunately, this will help him to get online as soon as possible :slight_smile:


@nodeateam I know what is your concern. why I proposed 10 minutes? That’s because this value has been verified that is secure enough on cosmos hub. Actually, it takes a long time to be jailed by down time, therefore, there’s no different between 10 minutes and 60 minutes.

@bharvest I agree with you. and the most experienced validators would not jail by down time. We haven’t seen it since the network launched. but there are some new validator who was jailed by down time. Since we are in a very early stages, we need to be more tolerant for new players.

PS: jackzampolin was jailed a couple days ago. He is a new validator on iris hub. I am not sure whether or not it’s operated by ‘real’ jack zampolin.


:rofl: That was a fake jack


It’s a personal idea.

As you said, it takes a long time to go to jail with downtime.
Nevertheless, the validator who go to jail think they threaten the stability of the network.
And if 10 and 60 minutes aren’t really the difference, should we change it?

jackzampolin is a fake (
With the current parameters we were able to keep the fake jackzampolin in jail longer.

I think new players don’t suffer from these things.
Rather, they are likely to worry about a centralized delegation environment.

Validators who want to participate in mainnet think that mainnet should not be thought of as a testnet.

If they want a mainnet validator,
I think they should practice enough on testnet.


It is difficult to say which value is better or worse. It depends on which stage we currently are. This value was turned up too much in last proposal .

Thanks for replying. Happy weekend.