Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 EIP-7805 (FOCIL) specs #4003
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add EIP-7805 (FOCIL) specs #4003
Changes from 20 commits
3a16a0e
fa27c8f
3c86963
8a1e940
833be94
a2b68a7
fb4a3c3
c7a056b
f84556c
2787b0d
0b09f96
6056b69
a8aec7c
cbe6129
0efcf13
f151c7c
b181655
0681f8c
2861684
e678deb
e9fdfc6
6ce0077
be471b8
c443db0
c8b6296
7fa44f4
84acfbb
702b9e5
561aed7
c762a33
20b0c50
aca38ea
1c6761a
d63042e
86c86d0
7d8e6fb
19b50a6
f25efbf
5a37c91
c411d45
dcd31d6
3652904
2781459
7a2cb7a
91054e6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Is there a reason why we introduce a
SignedInclusionList
container instead of just adding the signature field directly ontoInclusionList
?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.
When the beacon node initially retrieves the IL transactions from the execution client wouldn't it create the (unsigned)
InclusionList
and pass it through the beacon-api to the validator client to sign over it? only after that the validator client would submit theSignedInclusionList
to be broadcastThere 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 believe this is an out-of-date comment. Where is "remove the original one" happening exactly? It appears that it adds the validator to
inclusion_list_equivocators
instead now.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 thought it's the other way around?
p2p only accepts an IL if it's the first or second IL broadcasted by the peer.
The responsibility of picking out the equivocators should be on the p2p side. Beacon node just replace the first IL with the second IL if that happens
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.
The comments are outdated, and different client implementations may handle this differently. Essentially, we want to:
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.
The comment is outdated, yeah. It doesn't really matter which one we keep, we could also not keep either since anyway we ignore them once we know that it is an equivocation. For spec simplicity it seemed easier to just not do anything instead of removing, and also perhaps it makes sense to keep the first, just because if you're the builder you would probably rather use it even if there's an equivocation, just in case, and you'd rather use the first since you saw it earlier and from your perspective it is more likely to be enforced by someone
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.
Aren't we also limiting IL size by
MAX_BYTES_PER_INCLUSION_LIST = 8192
bytes as indicated in the EIP?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.
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.
Do we need another endpoint like
InclusionListByRange
since recently joined nodes need to request past ILs to sync blocks since the last checkpoint?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.
We do not. Inclusion lists only matter for the current slot. When a node is syncing blocks from past slots, the inclusion list check can be skipped