ethereum / ethereum/consensus-specs

Unresolved TODOs from PR #4828

Open
#4,885 2 comments 3 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub
Dominant language
Python
Stars
4k
Forks
1.3k
Avg merge
1d 7h
Merged PRs (30d)
58

Description

We merged in #4828 and decided to work on the unresolved items iteratively.

Here are the review threads that I think we did not reach a conclusion on:

## Prover Registration and Whitelist Mechanism

See review thread [here](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/4828#discussion_r2717344753)

There was a conversation around what the whitelist should be and the mechanism for registering and updating provers.

- Suggestion to use a BPO-like (Prover Parameter Only) config loaded as node configuration
- Main concern for this mechanism was around DoS if `execution_proof` topic is spammed with invalid proofs
- Reference doc: https://hackmd.io/@kevaundray/SJjGnqz8bl

## Stateless validation mode

See review thread [here](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/4828#discussion_r2718892537)

Discussion around whether the specs should support running without an EL

- Original purpose of optional proofs was to be able to run without an EL. However, we may want to allow both ExecutionEngine and ProofEngine

## Reuse ExecutionPayloadHeader

@jihoonsong notes [here](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/4828/changes#r2720997731) that ExecutionPayloadHeader is constructed twice with the same fields and could be reused from the `verify_new_payload_request_header` call

## proof_gen_id vs proof_type Naming

See review thread [here](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/4828#discussion_r2721129213)

- Clarification needed on what "proof instance" means

## Async Proof delivery and failure handling

See review thread [here](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/4828#discussion_r2721174717)

- Suggestion to add a note about fallback behavior

## Fork Choice and Proof Verification Timing

See review thread [here](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/4828#discussion_r2721258777)

Discussion about when verify_new_payload_request_header runs.

## K-out-of-N Policy Documentation

@jihoonsong noted that the k-out-of-n proof policy should be described somewhere in the spec.

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

Assessment

This issue has not been assessed yet.

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.