Protobuf definition for Optimint types #73
Conversation
| // https://github.com/gogo/protobuf/blob/master/custom_types.md#warnings-and-issues | ||
|
|
||
| // Validator | ||
| message Validator { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to rename this to Aggregator? BlockProducer?
Is there a well-established term in Rollups-land?
cc @adlerjohn @musalbas
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My personal preference is block producer/proposer. There's no convention at this time unfortunately. But if we're talking about multiple instead of a single one, then it gets weird to use anything except validator.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
An alternative, since "validator" has always been a poor word, would be "candidate" and "leader."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we're a bit out-of-context here: Validator is used only in Evidence, and there is always one Validator (in Evidence). And this Evidence is ABCI type re-use here.
As it's only related to Evidence, 'Validator' seems a good name. In Header we use proposer_address, in commit there are just signatures without specifying is it validator/proposer/producer/whatever.
In my opinion there are two options:
- Use ABCI Evidence as-is for now, reassess during fraud proofs work.
- Create own Evidence type, and I would use "Proposer" instead of Validator.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, let's keep the ABCI types unmodified. Internally, for types that do not cross the abci boundary, in optimint we can chose a different / better name.
liamsi
moved this from In progress
to Review in progress
in Weekly Sprint (core/app/libs)
As a part of reorganizing of tendermint/spec#53, protobuf definitions as separate PR.
This is re-used code from tendermint/spec#57 (with all the subsequent improvements introduced in tendermint/spec#53).