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

EPIC: Read-only protocol #1293

Closed
2 tasks
mpoke opened this issue Sep 13, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed
2 tasks

EPIC: Read-only protocol #1293

mpoke opened this issue Sep 13, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
admin: epic An EPIC -- meta issue used to track a body of work admin: key-result A key result (in the context of OKRs) S: NewThings Work towards your business objectives with new products, features, or integrations

Comments

@mpoke
Copy link
Contributor

mpoke commented Sep 13, 2023

Problem

This is a meta issue to track the work on making ICS a read-only protocol.

Closing criteria

Either ICS is redesigned as read-only protocol (i.e., no CCV channel) or a good reasoning of why this is not feasible is provided.

Problem details

We would like to simplify the ICS protocol to work with IBC queries. This will allow for a much simpler protocol, and easier maintenance going forward, as well as making the Hub more robust to malfunctioning consumer chains.

Task list

Must have

Nice to have

  1. 0 of 4
    S: NewThings admin: epic type: feature-request
@mpoke mpoke added admin: epic An EPIC -- meta issue used to track a body of work admin: key-result A key result (in the context of OKRs) labels Sep 13, 2023
@mpoke mpoke added the S: NewThings Work towards your business objectives with new products, features, or integrations label Sep 13, 2023
@mpoke mpoke changed the title Read-only protocol EPIC: Read-only protocol Sep 13, 2023
@shaspitz
Copy link
Contributor

Consumer initiated slashing will still exist with this idea correct? Everything would just be invoked by provider tx instead of an IBC packet

@mpoke
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpoke commented Sep 13, 2023

Consumer initiated slashing will still exist with this idea correct? Everything would just be invoked by provider tx instead of an IBC packet

Jailing for downtime is necessary. We'll need to figure out how to do it though. An IBC packet is a TX sent by a relayer and it comes with some nice proofs. Maybe something along the lines of #761 could be a solution. Not sure.

@mpoke
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpoke commented Dec 20, 2023

We believe that VSCMaturedPackets cannot be removed from the Replicated Security protocol without compromising the security of the system. This is due to the security model of IBC light clients. We documented our findings here. As a result, we are closing this issue.

@mpoke mpoke closed this as completed Dec 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
admin: epic An EPIC -- meta issue used to track a body of work admin: key-result A key result (in the context of OKRs) S: NewThings Work towards your business objectives with new products, features, or integrations
Projects
Status: ✅ Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants