Postconfirmation: acceptor terms #1065
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
apenzk
requested review from
l-monninger,
0xmovses,
mzabaluev and
musitdev
as code owners
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
protocol-unitsThe Acceptor serves in terms. Provides functionality to pick an attester and make it dependent on L1Blocks.
There are no rewards at this point and a volunteer acceptor can postconfirm/rollover at any point. This should be fixed in a later iteration.
testStakeActivationAndPostconfirmationtests a more complex scenario of rolling over and postconfirmation. This failed before making some modifications to the postconfirmation and staking code.setupGenesisWithThreeAttestersChangelog
getAcceptorStartL1BlockgetCurrentAcceptorsetupGenesisWithThreeAttesterstestStakeActivationAndPostconfirmationtestAcceptorRewards(incomplete)testGetAcceptorTesting
forge testokOutstanding issues
Turns out it is expensive to find the closest block that has the closest time to a given timestamp. So we will have to transition to considering Acceptor per block height. Its not yet clear if this is problematic for the incentives of the acceptor that is active at the border of epochs.