Remove logging deposit inclusion slot #8023
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
prestonvanloon
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2020
delete-merged-branch
bot
deleted the
rm-eth1-deposit-inclusion-log-usages
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this?
What does this PR do? Why is it needed?
BlockTimeByHeightis not a cheap call when running external hosted web3 provider (e.g. infura). The call gets significantly more expensive with more unknown validating keys.The actual usefulness of
Deposit for validator received but not processed into the beacon statelog is questionable. Validators use beacon block explorer with their eth1 address to check deposit status. Removing this log to save eth1 bandwidth is a fine trade off imo.Most importantly, excessive calls to
BlockTimeByHeight+ using hosted web3 provider can cause context deadline and cause validators to miss attestation, that's ultimately what we want to avoidNote: I didn't remove protobuf field since this has higher pirority. Removing the actual protobuf field will come later
Which issues(s) does this PR fix?
Fixes #8017
Other notes for review
Tested in Pyrmont