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

docs: spec tail padding share #1244

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 18, 2023

Conversation

rootulp
Copy link
Collaborator

@rootulp rootulp commented Jan 16, 2023

Closes #1175

See the implementation here.

Screenshot

Screenshot 2023-01-17 at 11 04 14 AM

@rootulp rootulp added the specs directly relevant to the specs label Jan 16, 2023
@rootulp rootulp self-assigned this Jan 16, 2023
cmwaters
cmwaters previously approved these changes Jan 17, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@cmwaters cmwaters left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

Does it make sense to add here how tail padding is used rather than just what it is?

@rootulp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rootulp commented Jan 17, 2023

I think it would help. How about?

Tail padding shares are placed after the last blob in the data square so that the number of shares in the data square is a perfect square. Clients can safely ignore the contents of these shares because they don't contain any significant data.

Although this just made me wonder: what if a block proposer includes tail padding shares with the tail padding namespace but actual data populated in the rawData? Do we want to check for and explicitly reject blocks with such shares?

Copy link
Contributor

@cmwaters cmwaters left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you!

@rootulp rootulp merged commit 4f83347 into celestiaorg:specs-staging Jan 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
specs directly relevant to the specs
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants