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

drop head_block_root from BeaconBlocksByRange #1604

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 9, 2020

Conversation

arnetheduck
Copy link
Contributor

@arnetheduck arnetheduck commented Jan 31, 2020

This change simplifies the protocol and removes a race condition between
block request and response. In the case of honest server, this helps
serve the canonical / fork-chosen chain better while dishonest or broken
servers still need to be handled the same way.

Might as well get started on versions and upgrade it to 2, since the
change is backwards incompatible.

This change simplifies the protocol and removes a race condition between
block request and response. In the case of honest server, this helps
serve the canonical / fork-chosen chain better while dishonest or broken
servers still need to be handled the same way.

Might as well get started on versions and upgrade it to 2, since the
change is backwards incompatible.
@djrtwo
Copy link
Contributor

djrtwo commented Jan 31, 2020

This was discussed and agreed upon by all those on the lastest networking call.

Specifically in addition to @arnetheduck (Nimbus), @AgeManning (lighthouse) agreed that the head root does not really help and in fact makes for coding some tough edge cases.

Leaving this PR open until Monday for any additional input from other client teams

@prestonvanloon
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM, we haven't been using this field anyway in Prysm

@Nashatyrev
Copy link
Member

+1

1 similar comment
@AgeManning
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Copy link
Contributor

@djrtwo djrtwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Two tiny comments before merge

specs/phase0/p2p-interface.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/phase0/p2p-interface.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@AgeManning
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Copy link
Contributor

@djrtwo djrtwo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants