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

Update docs for LedgerView #514

Merged
merged 2 commits into from May 15, 2019
Merged

Update docs for LedgerView #514

merged 2 commits into from May 15, 2019

Conversation

edsko
Copy link
Contributor

@edsko edsko commented May 15, 2019

No description provided.

@edsko edsko requested review from dcoutts, kantp and nc6 May 15, 2019 09:32
Copy link
Contributor

@dcoutts dcoutts left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@@ -435,10 +436,27 @@ instance (PBftCrypto c, SimpleBlockCrypto c')
=> ProtocolLedgerView (SimpleBlock (ExtNodeConfig (PBftLedgerView c) (PBft c)) c') where
protocolLedgerView (EncNodeConfig _ pbftParams) _ls = pbftParams

-- | Praos needs a ledger that can give it the "active stake distribution"
--
-- TODO: Currently out mock ledger does not do this, and just assumes that all
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
-- TODO: Currently out mock ledger does not do this, and just assumes that all
-- TODO: Currently our mock ledger does not do this, and just assumes that all

@@ -435,10 +436,27 @@ instance (PBftCrypto c, SimpleBlockCrypto c')
=> ProtocolLedgerView (SimpleBlock (ExtNodeConfig (PBftLedgerView c) (PBft c)) c') where
protocolLedgerView (EncNodeConfig _ pbftParams) _ls = pbftParams

-- | Praos needs a ledger that can give it the "active stake distribution"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm wondering whether we can find a better term than "active stake distribution". We already have "active stake" for all the stake that is delegated to pools. Also, it sounds to me like it was something very current, when indeed it's a snapshot from some time ago. I expect we will use the term we define now quite a lot, so a little bit of productive bike shedding on the name now should be fine.

Maybe "relevant stake distribution"? "epoch stake distribution"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"Relevant" works for me :)

-- for some bespoke version of the blockchain we may wish to use a committee
-- instead of a decentralized blockchain). Having sampling decisions in the
-- ledger layer rather than the consensus layer means that these decisions can
-- be made without modifying the consensus algorithm.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I very much like this, it opens a lot of possibilities. For example, once we have multicurrency and side chains, it's thinkable that we'll want to have some side chains use another currency to determine stake. That's much easier to do if it's an isolated thing in the ledger.

Copy link
Contributor

@kantp kantp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice! Some subtle stuff :)

@kantp kantp merged commit fabb7e2 into master May 15, 2019
@iohk-bors iohk-bors bot deleted the edsko/ledger-view-docs branch May 15, 2019 10:51
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

4 participants