consider specifying how effective_amount works for claims in a channel
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- CSS
- Stars
- 8
- Forks
- 9
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Today, the spec says that each claim has a single global effective_amount. However, a claim in a channel competes for it's name globally AND within the channel. In both cases, the effective amount is the same. This leads to surprising behavior when the in-channel activation delay does not match the global activation delay.
This happens only when a channel has multiple claims for the same name, a state that does not make much sense if we assume each channel has only one owner. However, this assumption may change in the future, and even if it doesn't, we should be clear about the behavior we want.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No file or test is named. Start by locating the specification sections defining claims, channels, effective_amount, and activation delays; done means the specification explicitly defines the intended behavior for competing global and in-channel claims.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100