-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 319
Za/konaproofs docs #1922
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
base: mintlify
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Za/konaproofs docs #1922
Conversation
Inphi
left a comment
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.
Looks good overall. One consideration I just realized is that dispute-mon may receive spurious alerts if a chain operators executes U18 (so they have cannon and cannon+kona configured in the dispute game factory) and someone creates invalid CANNON_KONA games.
If the chain operator isn't running a cannon-kona challenger, then the invalid CANNON_KONA games would be undisputed and resolve (incorrectly); tripping up the dispute-mon. Dispute-mon does not discriminate between respected and non-respected game types; it monitors all game types configured in the factory. So for this reason, we should recommend that operators configure their op-challenger for cannon-kona, even if it's not respected.
That said, a cannon-kona game that isn't respected cannot break the anchor state registry, even if it resolves incorrectly. This recommendation is to avoid spurious alerts, however unlikely, from being triggered by op-dispute-mon.
Co-authored-by: Inphi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Inphi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Inphi <[email protected]>
Add info about Kona proofs in the fault proofs explainer