add page on pos rewards and penalties

[jmcook1186]

Description

Adds a page on rewards and penalties in proof-of-stake ethereum as part of kb.beaconchain migration.
Pinging @wackerow for review and suggest possibly getting someone from consensus dev group to look too.

Related Issue

#2277

[gatsby-cloud]

❌ ethereum-org-website-dev deploy preview failed

Your build failed. View the build logs.

[wackerow]

@jmcook1186 This is really great, nice job here! This will be a very nice resource to have on the page.

I left comments for round one, but clearly I'm going to need to peak at those sources myself at the bottom to get a refresher and circle back.

[wackerow]

@jmcook1186 Can you help me more with where the 31/8 comes from?

Wouldn't it be 100% participation * 1/1 slot inclusion * 3 correct votes * 7/8 attester reward share * base_reward, which would be 21/8 * base_reward

Same with the others in this section.. maybe I need more clarification on the table above and how exactly that's being determined.

[jmcook1186]

I think it is 8/8 * 3 * base_reward for source, target and head votes, plus 7/8 * base_reward = 31/8.

I'm not 100% sure this is right, but it is consistent with the kb.beaconchain info.

[wackerow]

As of Bellatrix

And similar to above (perhaps this is the better place for it), a note about why this occurs would be good. Reiterating, some version of how the staked ETH needs to remain accessible to the protocol, while banned that validator from casting any further votes. The correlation penalty is because this is perceived as a coordinated attack.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated
ethereum-org-website	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Sep 6, 2022 at 11:50AM (UTC)

[wackerow]

• Adds header ID to header
• Using vote_reward and inclusion_reward to make it more clear these are separate rewards, and being explicit about how the result is the vote_reward + inclusion_reward - penalty
• Moves inclusion_reward column to the left to consolidate rewards together
• Simplifies the "results" mathematically, and arranges them all with the base_reward multiplier at the end

(same as screenshot above)

Suggested change

	### Attestation scenarios
	Assuming attestations are timely (included in the very next block, inclusion distance of 1) the following table describes the attestation rewards for four scenarios:
	| `source` | `target` | `head` | `base_reward` | penalty | `inclusion_delay` | Result |
	| ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------ | -------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
	| incorrect/missing | incorrect/missing | incorrect/missing | 0 | 3 \* `base_reward` | 0 | -3 \* `base_reward` |
	| correct | incorrect/missing | incorrect/missing | `base_reward` \* `participation_rate` | 2 \* `base_reward` | `base_reward` \* 7/8 | `base_reward` _ `participation_rate` - 9/8 _ `base_reward` |
	| correct | correct | incorrect/missing | 2 _ `base_reward` _ `participation_rate` | `base_reward` | `base_reward` \* 7/8 | (2 _ `base_reward` _ `participation_rate`) - 1/8 \* `base_reward` |
	| correct | correct | correct | 3 _ `base_reward` _ `participation_rate` | 0 | `base_reward` \* 7/8 | (3 _ `base_reward` _ `participation_rate`) + `base_reward` \* 7/8 |
	### Attestation scenarios {#attestation-scenarios}
	Assuming attestations are timely (included in the very next block, inclusion distance of 1) the following table describes the attestation rewards for four scenarios:
	| `source` | `target` | `head` | `vote_reward` | `inclusion_reward` | `penalty` | Result (`vote_reward` + `inclusion_reward` - `penalty`) |
	| ----------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------ | -------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------- |
	| incorrect/missing | incorrect/missing | incorrect/missing | 0 | 0 | 3 \* `base_reward` | - 3 \* `base_reward` |
	| correct | incorrect/missing | incorrect/missing | 1 \* `base_reward` \* `participation_rate` | 7/8 \* `base_reward` | 2 \* `base_reward` | (`participation_rate` - 9/8) \* `base_reward` |
	| correct | correct | incorrect/missing | 2 \* `base_reward` \* `participation_rate` | 7/8 \* `base_reward` | 1 \* `base_reward` | (2 \* `participation_rate` - 1/8) \* `base_reward` |
	| correct | correct | correct | 3 \* `base_reward` \* `participation_rate` | 7/8 \* `base_reward` | 0 | (3 \* `participation_rate` + 7/8) \* `base_reward` |

[wackerow]

Mainly just a little style addition to make it easier to compare the coefficients

Suggested change

	Assuming a 100% `participation_rate`:
	- You vote correctly and gets included in the next slot: you get 31/8 \* `base_reward`
	- You miss head because you got a late block and it gets included in the next slot: you get 15/8 \* `base_reward`
	- You miss head and target cause you got late a block, you get -1/8 \* `base_reward`
	- You attest and vote correctly, but the next block is missed, you get 55/16 \* `base_reward`
	Assuming a `participation_rate` of 100% (1), some common scenarios are:
	- You vote correctly and it gets included in the next slot: you get **31/8** \* `base_reward`
	- You miss head because you got a late block and it gets included in the next slot: you get **15/8** \* `base_reward`
	- You miss head and target cause you got late a block, you get **-1/8** \* `base_reward`
	- You attest and vote correctly, but the next block is missed, you get **55/16** \* `base_reward`

[wackerow]

@jmcook1186 🎉 🥳