Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Different approach to get the balance of shielded addresses. #699

Closed
hkey0 opened this issue Mar 29, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Different approach to get the balance of shielded addresses. #699

hkey0 opened this issue Mar 29, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@hkey0
Copy link

hkey0 commented Mar 29, 2024

Hello,
As far as I understand, if we want to get the balance of a shielded address, the front-end starts a shielded-sync like process by getting all blocks from the RPC. It won't work after hard-fork anyway.

Instead of doing that, wouldn't it be better to assume that the connected RPC is fully shielded-sync and try to get the balance? I don't know if this is possible, but it would be nice if it was this way.

Reasons:

  • It is not possible to pull the first block after the hardfork. An old RPC must be used until the hardfork block
  • Gettings hundreds of thousands of blocks in the front-end is tedious

If you want to test it, my shielded-sync RPC address for shielded expedition:
https://rpc.namascan.com/

Thanks, have a nice day!

@Rigorously
Copy link

Caching balances in the RPC is an idea that I pitched in the anoma/namada#2900 (comment), but it was ignored or even dismissed as something that should definitely not be done anoma/namada#2900 (comment).

@mateuszjasiuk
Copy link
Collaborator

@hkey0 @Rigorously Thank you for messages. If the protocol guys think caching is not a good idea we can't do much about it. I do not feel competent enough in this area to have strong opinion. What I can tell you is that we are having internal discussions about improving shieled-sync/balance queries. The problem is recognized and we are working on solutions(s). :) I will leave this open for time being, if there is some more info in future I will let you know here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants