If registering as bootstrapper, the proof of attendance should be ignored or be refunded

[clangenb]

I just noticed in the app that we register with the proof of attendance even if we are a bootstrapper, but the pallet does not refund it upon unregistering. So we should either refund it if the bootstrapper unregisters, or ignore it when registering, I would vote for the latter.

[brenzi]

refunding bootstrappers like reputables seems more straight-forward to me ATM. This however can fail for multiple reasons, like it is the case for reputables

However, it ain't the duty of the protocol to fix shortcomings of the client app which may cause extrinsic failures. I'd rather have extrinsics fail if that is more secure and easier to test

my gut feeling is that we should treat bootstrappers and reputables the same whenever possible.

the upside of treating them the same is also that the chain state contains data which are digestable for analytics with fewer edge cases. Analyzing noshows (without unregistering) should be the same for bootstrappes like for reputables