293: initial draft #295

JekaMas · 2018-08-06T11:42:37Z

No description provided.

oskarth · 2018-08-17T04:34:46Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+    - QA
+okrs:
+    - Core. [P0] LES and/or ULC are operational and used by at least 10% of all users.
+    - Research. Integrate and test ULC in a manner “graceful downgrade”: use infura by default and if it fails, start ULC node.


Why is Infura used by default? Seems complex, and if anything it should be the other way around. Am I missing something?

From my side, Infura is the lightest mode. It should be enough users, who want to use status as a chat. If you need to make transactions or communicate with smart contracts(or Infura is banned) you can switch to other options.

@b00ris I feel like graceful downgrade is a good UX feature, but it is a bit different and I doesn't belong to this swarm. If would be trivial to implement it if ULC and LES work reliably.

oskarth · 2018-08-17T04:35:33Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+We need LES client enabled on mobile device to be really decentralized and to enable all web3 features for dApps.
+
+### Requirements & Dependencies
+Depends on research swarm #254


LES integration doesn't depend on this, it's bringing back previous work and fixing bugs around it.

Yes, you are right. It blocks ULC integration. I've fixed it.

oskarth · 2018-08-17T04:35:50Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+Depends on research swarm #254
+
+### Security and Privacy Implications
+* Free slots for LES servers


Could you elaborate?

oskarth · 2018-08-17T04:37:21Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+
+### Minimum Viable Product
+* LES can work as the second Ethereum provider in status app.
+* ULC can work as the third Ethereum provider in status app with static trusted nodes.


I think MVP is just LES, but perhaps the other iteration re ULC is concurrent? So we are working on both at the same time.

I don't understand why the goal date is in October? That's way too far away for initial LES (even if bad perf/a bit buggy) cc @mandrigin

If we are taking "just LES" as a first iteration (and in WIP), it should be done by Sep, 1st, I think.
Later, we can estimate how broken is it and what the next iterations are. Right now I know too little about the state of LES and ULC to make estimates for anything besides that.

oskarth · 2018-08-17T04:39:45Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+Goal Date: 2018-08-27
+
+Description:
+* investigate les integration problems and fix them


Perhaps we can be more precise here. I think it'd be useful to bring it back under a development flag as soon as possible, and figure out bugs as they are discovered. Doesn't seem realistic that all bugs will be fixed straight away, especially when they aren't clearly defined.

Agree. I would put it as "return LES as a WIP option for testnets" as iteration 1 (I think that would be safer) and "make a list of issues of current LES implementation".
After this is done, we can really track progress and plan for that.
All the LES peers can be hardcoded for that, so we are putting discovery aside.

oskarth · 2018-08-17T04:40:24Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+
+Description:
+* run ULC compatible nodes in staus cluser
+* integrate ULC to status-go as a patch


I don't understand why this is separate from ULC in go-ethereum master, isn't it essentially the same thing but two different outputs?

why do we need a patch for status-go if it would be in geth already?

@mandrigin @oskarth Removed.

oskarth · 2018-08-17T04:41:27Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+Description:
+* reserved for shifting
+
+## Success Metrics


It'd be useful to have some perf goals, for example see status-im/status-go#1025 re CHT and sync, and WiFi partial sync, etc.

@oskarth I'd avoid pre-optimizing anything. First, we need to make it work regardless of performance, then find performance issues and fix them. They shouldn't be in the plan, but I feel like it is too early to really thing about these ideas, while we don't really have proper problems set up.

@oskarth I agree with @mandrigin. I think it's a part of another swarm.

b00ris · 2018-08-17T12:25:07Z

@oskarth Thank you for the comments. On it.

mandrigin · 2018-08-17T17:40:14Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+* run ULC compatible nodes in staus cluser
+* integrate ULC to status-go as a patch
+
+### Iteration 2018-09-10 - 2018-09-24


I wouldn't really plan behind the first iteration, because I personally have no idea of what needs to be done for LES to work properly :)

I would envision plan as

Iteration 1: add LES as a WIP option with a warning and make thorough testing of it.

Backlog:

ULC in go-ethereum;

ULC in status-go;

ULC on our cluster;
...

mandrigin

a few questions & suggestions

oskarth · 2018-08-29T04:47:06Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+ * TBD
+
+## Success Metrics
+* Status app can use LES and ULC provider instead of Infura.


Success metric is probably % of users using it

oskarth · 2018-08-29T04:47:28Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+* Status app can use LES and ULC provider instead of Infura.
+
+## Exit criteria
+* Running on Mainnet


Being able to use app without major bugs like on Infura?

oskarth · 2018-08-29T04:47:42Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+
+    Idea: 293-ulc-integration
+    Title: ULC integration
+    Status: Draft


Still draft?

oskarth · 2018-08-29T04:47:49Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+    - mandrigin Clojure dev
+    - b00ris Go dev
+    - jeka Go dev
+exit-criteria: no


oskarth · 2018-08-29T04:47:58Z

ideas/293-ulc-integration/README.md

+success-metrics: no
+clear-roles: no
+future-iteration: no
+roles-needed:


mandrigin · 2018-09-01T09:20:44Z

@oskarth I tweaked the idea, I think it is ready to be merged.

293: initial draft

2970c85

b00ris force-pushed the 293-ulc-integration branch from b0a3c7d to 2970c85 Compare August 10, 2018 14:11

b00ris requested review from mandrigin, b00ris, arnetheduck and oskarth August 10, 2018 14:33

b00ris changed the title ~~[WIP ]293: initial draft~~ 293: initial draft Aug 15, 2018

oskarth reviewed Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

oskarth suggested changes Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

mandrigin reviewed Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

mandrigin suggested changes Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

oskarth mentioned this pull request Aug 20, 2018

Status Devs Meeting 2 Agenda status-im/pm#2

Closed

293: change lead contributor to mandrigin

ef79793

oskarth reviewed Aug 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

Igor Mandrigin added 3 commits September 1, 2018 11:10

Add the infra part for the LES servers.

97d5a8c

Tweak success criteria.

ec88cb1

Remove one OKR.

db39522

mandrigin self-assigned this Sep 1, 2018

Igor Mandrigin added 2 commits September 1, 2018 11:18

Reformat iterations and header.

ee56f89

Fix preamble.

897414b

mandrigin approved these changes Sep 1, 2018

View reviewed changes

oskarth approved these changes Sep 3, 2018

View reviewed changes

oskarth merged commit 82338a3 into master Sep 3, 2018

This pull request was closed.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

293: initial draft #295

293: initial draft #295

JekaMas commented Aug 6, 2018

oskarth Aug 17, 2018

b00ris Aug 20, 2018

mandrigin Sep 1, 2018

oskarth Aug 17, 2018

b00ris Aug 20, 2018

oskarth Aug 17, 2018

oskarth Aug 17, 2018

mandrigin Aug 17, 2018

oskarth Aug 17, 2018

mandrigin Aug 17, 2018

oskarth Aug 17, 2018

mandrigin Aug 17, 2018

b00ris Aug 20, 2018

oskarth Aug 17, 2018

mandrigin Aug 17, 2018

b00ris Aug 20, 2018

b00ris commented Aug 17, 2018

mandrigin Aug 17, 2018

mandrigin left a comment

oskarth Aug 29, 2018

oskarth Aug 29, 2018

oskarth Aug 29, 2018

oskarth Aug 29, 2018

oskarth Aug 29, 2018

mandrigin commented Sep 1, 2018

293: initial draft #295

293: initial draft #295

Conversation

JekaMas commented Aug 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

b00ris commented Aug 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mandrigin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mandrigin commented Sep 1, 2018