-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 169
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
Give liveness epoch same "shape" as attester duties #253
Conversation
ethereum#131 introduced a new liveness endpoint - the request is similar to attester duties in that we query a list of attesters for data pertaining to a particular epoch - as such, it seems reasonable to keep the two requests similar in terms of their URL/postdata structure.
cc @paulhauner |
my understanding was that it's not really something we can query for anything but current or previous epoch... it seems that the epoch field is just going to result in false unless it's very carefully used... |
it's allowed, just not required - the data could be synthesized from a state for example, or if a client wants to implement "deep" doppelganger protection (ie more than 2 epochs of silence) |
to me this makes sense overall, just would like to hear from @paulhauner and potentially @mehdi-aouadi to get opinions of people implementing... |
Change looks good to me 👍 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
#131 introduced a new liveness endpoint - the request is similar to attester duties in that we query a list of validators for data pertaining to a particular epoch - as such, it seems reasonable to keep the two requests similar in terms of their URL/postdata structure.