Exclude slashed validators from proposing

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open EIP 8045 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: A modification to the beacon chain proposer selection process to exclude slashed validators from being selected as proposers.
3. Name the object that changes: MUST, NOT, REQUIRED.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing EIP 8045 at the status the text itself states: Review.
• The object that has to change is MUST, NOT, REQUIRED. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Wallet support is not the same as consensus validity.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this review. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What is covered by the signed bytes in Exclude slashed validators from proposing?
• Can the same signature be replayed on another chain, account, or message?
• Which primitive does the text require: MUST, NOT, REQUIRED?

Terms

EIP 8045

The public text titled Exclude slashed validators from proposing.

Review

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A signature that does not commit to what the user saw can be replayed into a different spend, a different chain, or a different message.

What the design proposes

• A modification to the beacon chain proposer selection process to exclude slashed validators from being selected as proposers.
• Currently, slashed validators can still be selected as proposers, though their blocks are considered invalid by the state transition function, resulting in missed slots.
• This is in particular problematic after a mass slashing event, at which point there can be a long period with degraded chain performance, until all slashed validators are exited.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: Currently, slashed validators can still be selected as proposers, though their blocks are considered invalid by the state transition function, resulting in missed slots.
• Locate MUST, NOT, REQUIRED in EIP 8045 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A signature scheme is not a privacy system. It hides the signer only if the protocol says so.
• Wallet support is not the same as consensus validity.
• The source marks this review. It is not a live consensus rule just because it has a number.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use EIP 8045 when a pitch says 'Exclude slashed validators from proposing' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.