Eth2.0-specs: Max Deposit and Max Deposits

[terencechain]

I find it slightly confusing MAX_DEPOSIT and MAX_DEPOSITS are so close. Given they define two very different meanings, but only one s apart. The developer can easily misconfigure block's max operation from 16 to 32...

[hwwhww]

What do people think about:
MIN_DEPOSIT -> MIN_DEPOSIT_IN_ETHER
MAX_DEPOSIT -> MAX_DEPOSIT_IN_ETHER
GWEI_PER_ETH -> GWEI_PER_ETHER

[Swader]

MIN_VALIDATOR_DEPOSIT? Clearly differentiates from the _number_ of max deposits in the other value.

[JustinDrake]

My vote is MAX_DEPOSIT_AMOUNT and MIN_DEPOSIT_AMOUNT. We no longer use "deposit" to refer to a uint64.

[terencechain]

That sounds good. Happy to open a PR forMAX_DEPOSIT_AMOUNT and MIN_DEPOSIT_AMOUNT if there's no objection

[hwwhww]

@JustinDrake
My point is indicating the denomination unit explicitly. Doesn't MAX_DEPOSIT_AMOUNT make it still/more confusing since we have DepositData.amount for the amount in gwei?

[djrtwo]

I like

• MIN_DEPOSIT_IN_ETH
• MAX_DEPOSIT_IN_ETH
• GWEI_PER_ETH

I think "eth" is clear enough and very commonly used. Not opposed to "ether" if that's the consensus.
To echo @hwwhww, py-evm has had trouble in the past with denomination ambiguities, and ultimately resolved it by being very explicit in naming and typing. We've already had a number of small bugs around manipulating ether values in the spec up to this point. I think explicit in name will almost entirely eliminate these types of bugs.

[hwwhww]

418 sounds like a great idea to solve the denomination issue.

If #418 is applied, MAX_DEPOSIT_AMOUNT sounds correct then.

[terencechain]

Sounds good. I'll open PR today. We can just use MAX_DEPOSIT_AMOUNT as 32 * 1e9

[JustinDrake]

I believe this is addressed by #420 :)