-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
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
Add validator spec #18
Conversation
d6e2ea7
to
fde74bd
Compare
fde74bd
to
3078070
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall looks really great; thank you @ralexstokes.
c9bb35c
to
ea0a198
Compare
ea0a198
to
d398503
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm!
specs/validator.md
Outdated
|
||
Honest proposers using the external builder network will give the builders a duration of | ||
`BUILDER_PROPOSAL_DELAY_TOLERANCE` before the external builder is considered to have hit the deadline and the external | ||
builder flow must be aborted in favor of a local build process. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think about including fallback to a local build process to the steps outlined above? In this case the place from which the fallback becomes dangerous (due to slashing) could be clearly defined.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it would obscure the flow outlined above but I'm open to it if many think it is clearer.
As far as I know most clients have some version of this implemented already and they have two distinct code paths so it maps directly to say "run these two tasks, race them against a deadline"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am fine with current description as long as implementers clearly understand the last moment where they can safely sign off on a payload that is built locally.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe it could be clearer if we refer BUILDER_PROPOSAL_DELAY_TOLERANCE
specifically to bid providing.
something like
... will give the builders a duration of BUILDER_PROPOSAL_DELAY_TOLERANCE
to provide a SignedBuilderBid
before the external builder is considered to have hit the deadline and the external
or also rename it to BUILDER_BID_PROPOSAL_DELAY_TOLERANCE
?
this way it is clear the assumption that the fallback is no more an option once validator sign a blind block made with the bid.
Co-authored-by: Mikhail Kalinin <[email protected]>
ok I have addressed the feedback so far, unless there is more feedback soon I say we go ahead and merge it in |
8f61e71
to
2ab456f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Fixes #13.