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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
feat: implement FIP-0063 #11572
feat: implement FIP-0063 #11572
Changes from all commits
7613cdf
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 this endpoint monitored by any of the drand monitoring infra? We were burned in the past by 3rd party bootstrappers going offline.
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 endpoint, no, though we get some alerting if their node goes down (which is normally a good indicator).
The client uses all the addresses as fallback so it shouldn’t cause an outage though - what was the issue in the past?
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.
@CluEleSsUK @AnomalRoil ?
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 general issue in the past was that we had a significant number of third-party bootstrappers (let's say 70% of all), and the majority of them were down.
It didn't cause an outage per se, but it slowed down bootstraping.
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.
If drand network upgrade does not align with chain network upgrade, should we check the exact drand network upgrade epoch here?
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.
This is a fork logic which works off the DrandSchedule. So, the meaning of this is to disable the old fork logic before switching to the new Drand network.
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.
@hanabi1224 Thanks for the question! I don't think we need to check the exact epoch here -- as Kuba said, the intention is to say "before nv22, special-case fork logic this way". For the upcoming change to quicknet, we DON'T want to use the old fork logic, and instead just seamlessly switch to quicknet.
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.
Ditto, should we decouple drand network version and chain network version here?
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.
Similar to above, I don't think so, no. From nv22 onwards we'll be using "unchained" randomness, and so can simply verify round 0 too.