Page MenuHomePhabricator

[website] Add Tutorial for Avalanche Staking
ClosedPublic

Authored by Mengerian on Sep 7 2022, 05:10.

Details

Reviewers
PiRK
Fabien
Group Reviewers
Restricted Project
Commits
rABCWEB9462b98de5bf: [website] Add Tutorial for Avalanche Staking
Summary

Explanation and steps to help people generate the own Stake Proofs and run an Avalanche-enable node

Test Plan

Helped people actually go through the steps, fixed parts that tripped them up
Ran the site locally, read it and checked links.

Diff Detail

Repository
rABCWEB Bitcoin ABC Website
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

_posts/2022-09-06-avalanche-staking-tutorial.md
52 ↗(On Diff #34839)
78 ↗(On Diff #34839)

The menu item is capitalized as of Electrum ABC 5.1.5 "Avalanche Proof Editor"

109 ↗(On Diff #34839)

Because of the payout address bug fixed in 5.1.5, we should add a 2b: check again all fields after loading the proof, and adjust parameters if necessary (but don't touch the master_pub or expiration time) step, or alternatively update this doc to mention 5.1.5 as the minimum required version for Electrum ABC.

The bug will affect users who customized the payout address during Step 1 (skeleton proof generation): the address will be reset to the default one generated by the proof wallet.

129 ↗(On Diff #34839)

How verbose are the avalanche debugging logs? Should we mention that users should periodically deleted their debug.log file to avoid filling the disk space?

_posts/2022-09-06-avalanche-staking-tutorial.md
52 ↗(On Diff #34839)

bullet is missing

_posts/2022-09-06-avalanche-staking-tutorial.md
129 ↗(On Diff #34839)

The log is limited to 1G by default and will override itself like a circular buffer after it reached the limit

Mengerian marked 5 inline comments as done.

Address review feedback, plus other fixes and improvements

Fix Avalanche white paper link

Fabien added inline comments.
_posts/2022-09-07-avalanche-staking-tutorial.md
153 ↗(On Diff #34857)

Depends on the expected timing, but would it make sense to request 0.26.x instead ? Because node operators will need to upgrade anyway.

161 ↗(On Diff #34857)

I will remove this at this stage of the doc, or add a comment like # See details below

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sep 7 2022, 18:34

Inprove instructions related to using a Delegation