A slashing event occurred in era 489 on the Centrifuge chain and 164 nominators were affected by the slashing.
Can the validator (inchainworks) - or someone else - please comment on the reason for the slashing and which security measures will be taken to avoid a recurrence?
The nominators are eager to know what happened.
Thanks!
As I recall, this is second slashing event.
Would be keen to know what went wrong so that preventive actions are taken to avoid such future incidents by validators in actions.
oh nooo I also got slashed 
Sorry, man. We are waiting for the validator’s explanation
Hi guys,
As I explained in the discord chat, I had a problem with my server while I was traveling to my uncle’s funeral. Lack of space in the machine has led to data corruption.
First thing I did was to try to restore data from a snapshot I had made earlier. I was able to restore it and data started to synchronize. When I noticed that it was taking longer than expected I migrated my session keys to the backup machine but it was too late I think.
I was reported by a fisherman, (the system wouldn’t have slashed me automatically ), I don’t think the reporter was after the reporting reward but that’s what happened.
The slash is not applied yet.
Sik from stakingfacilities[dot]com took the initiative to ask the team if it should be removed or not in discord.
I pinged inchainworks on 11th of August 7:39 CET and told him that his node is not producing blocks.
So it was a regular downtime.
The chain would just slash this downtime when at least 10% of the validators are offline the same time.
Given the 50 slots active set there would be no slashing until 5 validators don’t produce blocks.
This slashing was manually reported by another validator.
I don’t know if it was to get the reward for reporting or if it was meant in good intent for the chain.
The slash is still unapplied so no nominator funds are deducted yet.
That’s why I asked if the slash should be removed (no funds will get slashed then).
@inchainworks @Sik-crifferent.de
Since this is the slash, there will be penalty associated? If yes, which which level and what % is expected that will be applied as per Slashing percentages?
You can see in polkadot.js that the slash is listed as " era 489/unapplied ".
So it is not decided yet if it’s getting applied or being removed.
Hi!
Thanks for the explanation and transparency. Your nominators appreciate it.
Cheers
Yeah its there on portal. But as, it is specified in polka wiki below
As it is seen, there will be a need of governance proposal to reverse it @Sik-crifferent.de @inchainworks ? After that 7 day period, slashes are applied. Any take on this?
We have created a proposal in order to cancel the slash, and so that the nominators are not penalized. The downtime was only for 1/50 and was manually reported, so we encourage you to take a little of your time and vote for the cancellation of the slash, and we think that your action will be beneficial not only to the nominators concerned but also for the community of Centrifuge.
proposal hash : 0x2ec54eecfab46a3f1d51fe81aa94b88c545a5553d4d034c14ef81899aa3ee2b2
if you think that we will live up to your confidence in the future, we need you to re-nominate us (for reactivation), otherwise we thank you and remain listening to your reactions and suggestions.
Thanks @inchainworks for clarifying the entire situation and getting this proposal out. This gives community a chance to showcase their support stand and we do hope everything sorts out nicely.
Do we know how many seconds to the motion to cancel the slash are required? Is there a set figure or does the motion get put in front of a committee?
Not sure if that’s the case. I had came across raising proposal in such event which was posted above. If the proposal of deferring is passed then the slashes are not applied but in the event it is not, then depending upon the severity of fault level, it will be applied. check this staking section Staking · Polkadot Wiki
Was this slashing accepted, and if so, what percentage? I couldn’t find it onchain.
Afaik, the slashing was not implemented for this case to validators and nominators
