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

Prioritise block proposal strategy #1652

Closed
corverroos opened this issue Jan 18, 2023 · 0 comments
Closed

Prioritise block proposal strategy #1652

corverroos opened this issue Jan 18, 2023 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
protocol Protocol Team tickets

Comments

@corverroos
Copy link
Contributor

Problem to be solved

Block proposals can either be:

  • normal beacon blocks
  • normal beacon blocks with synthetic blocks
  • blinded blocks
  • blinded blocks with synthetic blocks

All nodes in the cluster should use the same strategy

Proposed solution

Prioritise block proposal strategies

Out of Scope

If there is anything to highlight as out of scope for this issue, please outline it here.

@thomasheremans thomasheremans added the protocol Protocol Team tickets label Jan 23, 2023
obol-bulldozer bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2023
Includes local proposal type in infosync protocol. Note the output isn't used yet.

category: feature
ticket: #1652
obol-bulldozer bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2023
Introduces `core.BuilderEnabled` that abstracts `app.mutableConfig` which wraps `infosync.Component` such that whether builderAPI is enabled is dynamically based on prioritise results.

category: feature
ticket: #1652
obol-bulldozer bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 3, 2023
Disables mutable BuilderAPI enabled config since VCs do not support dynamically enabling/disabling so manual configuration is always required.

category: refactor
ticket: #1652
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
protocol Protocol Team tickets
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants