-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
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
CIP-22: Remove blobStartIndex from PFBs #160
Conversation
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.
Awesome work! Really well written. I'm in favor of removing the blobStartIndex (a.k.a share_indexes
) if possible.
cips/cip-noindex.md
Outdated
|
||
celestia-node does not consume this index. Although they have their own way of creating the same information, this proposal is not applicable to them. | ||
|
||
None of the rollup teams are influenced by this change except Sovereign SDK. The circuit parsing the PFB reserved namespace would break and must be adapted. The circuit does not use the information from the blobStartIndex. If this change is accepted, the live rollup teams will have to upgrade their circuits when Celestia upgrades to the new version. Currently, no rollups are live on mainnet using Celestia, so a breaking change would not affect anyone directly. |
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.
no rollups are live on mainnet using Celestia
Is this statement only applicable to Sovereign SDK roll-ups?
None of the rollup teams are influenced by this change except Sovereign SDK. The circuit parsing the PFB reserved namespace would break and must be adapted. The circuit does not use the information from the blobStartIndex. If this change is accepted, the live rollup teams will have to upgrade their circuits when Celestia upgrades to the new version. Currently, no rollups are live on mainnet using Celestia, so a breaking change would not affect anyone directly. | |
None of the rollup teams are influenced by this change except Sovereign SDK. The circuit parsing the PFB reserved namespace would break and must be adapted. The circuit does not use the information from the blobStartIndex. If this change is accepted, the live rollup teams will have to upgrade their circuits when Celestia upgrades to the new version. Currently, no Sovereign SDK rollups are live on mainnet using Celestia, so a breaking change would not affect anyone directly. |
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.
Yes So far I only have seen them proving thinks through the PFB messages. This should also be not a concern when they move to Authored Blobs
cips/cip-noindex.md
Outdated
|
||
## Security Considerations | ||
|
||
No Celestia light nodes rely on the blobStartIndex to verify the square's correctness. No fraud proofs rely on the blobStartIndex, so removing it does not affect the network's security. Without the blobStartIndex, we won't be able to create compact fraud proofs anymore. This means that accepting this proposal is also a commitment to ZK prove the validity of the square layout. |
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.
👍
cips/cip-noindex.md
Outdated
|
||
## Specification | ||
|
||
Remove the blobStartIndex from the ['WrappedTransaction'](https://celestiaorg.github.io/celestia-app/specs/data_structures.html#wrappedtransaction). |
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.
cips/cip-noindex.md
Outdated
--- | ||
title: Removing the blobStartIndex | ||
author: NashQueue @Nashqueue | ||
discussions-to: URL |
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! I think this can be merged after you create a forum post and link here
is my understanding correct that to point to the actual blob you intend to in the square you have to use index + height + commitment? without index, there could be 2 blobs with identical commitments submitted by 2 different accounts where 1 is malicious and 2 is honest? |
cips/cip-noindex.md
Outdated
|
||
## Security Considerations | ||
|
||
No Celestia light nodes rely on the blobStartIndex to verify the square's correctness. No fraud proofs rely on the blobStartIndex, so removing it does not affect the network's security. Without the blobStartIndex, we won't be able to create compact fraud proofs anymore. This means that accepting this proposal is also a commitment to ZK prove the validity of the square layout. |
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.
Perhaps this can be moved to the forum discussion but has there been any analysis done on the feasibility of proving that a blob has been paid for
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.
Could you explain what you mean
I think this needs a description based on CIP-1: https://github.com/celestiaorg/CIPs/blob/main/cips/cip-1.md#cip-header-preamble |
Overview
CIP about removing the blobstartIndex from the Wrapped Transaction