Draft RFC: Treestate management #983
Conversation
dconnolly
added
A-docs
dconnolly
force-pushed
the
treestate-design
branch
2 times, most recently
from
043b9e8 to
517a7ec
Compare
book/src/dev/rfcs/0005-treestate.md
Outdated
| nullifier sets are updated in memory as note nullifiers are revealed. If the | ||
| rest of the block is validated according to consensus rules, that root is | ||
| committed to its own datastructure via our state service (Sprout anchors, | ||
| Sapling anchors). Sapling block validation includes comparing the specified |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/pull/902/files#r482674070 for a suggestion of how to store these anchors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, maybe we should cross-reference here?
|
I'm marking this 'ready for review' because I want to start getting eyes on the Guide-level section |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, and it makes sense to me, even though this isn't an area I've spent a lot of time on.
I had a few questions and style notes.
I wonder if some of this detail belongs in the reference-level section. Or maybe the guide-level explanation needs a summary, and some headings to split up the text, and help people navigate.
book/src/dev/rfcs/0005-treestate.md
Outdated
| nullifier sets are updated in memory as note nullifiers are revealed. If the | ||
| rest of the block is validated according to consensus rules, that root is | ||
| committed to its own datastructure via our state service (Sprout anchors, | ||
| Sapling anchors). Sapling block validation includes comparing the specified |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, maybe we should cross-reference here?
|
suddenly I feel so much more prepared to review this rfc, ty @str4d |
…e commitment tree roots/anchor lookup
Co-authored-by: teor <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: teor <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: teor <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Daira Hopwood <[email protected]>
dconnolly
force-pushed
the
treestate-design
branch
from
bbdd2fa to
51759ee
Compare
dconnolly
changed the title
I think I either addressed or added as TODO's in the document all of these! 💃 |
|
Approved and merging as a draft RFC |
TODO
RFC
Rendered.
Follow up work
Todo's in #958