You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It's possible that when shim returns blobs for a specific namespace (for sovereign dock at minimum), it would attempt to create proofs of inclusion. However, some of the blobs may potentially fail to be included. Those submit blob extrinsics would still be present in the block, and as such will be returned in the resulting "blobs" field. By default the sovereign adapter would treat them as all of them included. At the same time the inclusion proof would not contain the failed blobs. Therefore, I would expect that this inclusion proof will fail verification.
This would be solved if we did not allow the invalid blobs in blocks as per #74
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Issues evolve, grow and shrink in scope. It happens that an issue is closed when not all aspects/problems are fixed. Therefore IMO it's better to risk having two different issues for the same thing than having two things on one issue. The downside of this approach is that the discoverability decreases and the discussion smears over, but not too concering at this moment.
It's possible that when shim returns blobs for a specific namespace (for sovereign dock at minimum), it would attempt to create proofs of inclusion. However, some of the blobs may potentially fail to be included. Those submit blob extrinsics would still be present in the block, and as such will be returned in the resulting "blobs" field. By default the sovereign adapter would treat them as all of them included. At the same time the inclusion proof would not contain the failed blobs. Therefore, I would expect that this inclusion proof will fail verification.
This would be solved if we did not allow the invalid blobs in blocks as per #74
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: