-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 997
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
drop head_block_root
from BeaconBlocksByRange
#1604
Conversation
4505010
to
bc832d4
Compare
This change simplifies the protocol and removes a race condition between block request and response. In the case of honest server, this helps serve the canonical / fork-chosen chain better while dishonest or broken servers still need to be handled the same way. Might as well get started on versions and upgrade it to 2, since the change is backwards incompatible.
bc832d4
to
c943b58
Compare
This was discussed and agreed upon by all those on the lastest networking call. Specifically in addition to @arnetheduck (Nimbus), @AgeManning (lighthouse) agreed that the head root does not really help and in fact makes for coding some tough edge cases. Leaving this PR open until Monday for any additional input from other client teams |
LGTM, we haven't been using this field anyway in Prysm |
+1 |
1 similar comment
+1 |
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.
Two tiny comments before merge
+1 |
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.
thanks!
This change simplifies the protocol and removes a race condition between
block request and response. In the case of honest server, this helps
serve the canonical / fork-chosen chain better while dishonest or broken
servers still need to be handled the same way.
Might as well get started on versions and upgrade it to 2, since thechange is backwards incompatible.