eip7805: rebase FOCIL onto Gloas#4714
Conversation
jihoonsong
force-pushed
the
focil-onto-gloas
branch
4 times, most recently
from
d9a4d04 to
47a421b
Compare
jihoonsong
force-pushed
the
focil-onto-gloas
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7a153e9 to
486271d
Compare
jihoonsong
force-pushed
the
focil-onto-gloas
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e80e1d3 to
c2b273d
Compare
specs/gloas/validator.md
Outdated
| - Sign the `inclusion_list` using the helper `get_inclusion_list_signature` and | ||
| obtain the `signature`. | ||
| - Set `signed_inclusion_list.message` to `inclusion_list`. | ||
| - Set `signed_inclusion_list.signature` to `signature`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency, there should be a "create a signed_inclusion_list object" item like line 301. Then the instructions at 309 can be joined into 312. Something like:
- Set
signed_inclusion_list.signatureto the result ofget_inclusion_list_signature.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, thanks! I've changed it in harmony with specs/gloas/builder.md.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By the way, I've noticed Constructing XYZ section is written in an inconsistent way; some are indexed while others are listed. Additionally, in specs/gloas/validator.md, XYZ in such sections are variable names, rather than container classes. All other sections in the spec use container classes. Do we want to polish this (probably in other PRs)?
jihoonsong
force-pushed
the
focil-onto-gloas
branch
from
c2b273d to
2f0a9ac
Compare
| ```python | ||
| def get_attester_head(store: Store, head_root: Root) -> Root: | ||
| head_block = store.blocks[head_root] | ||
| head_hash = head_block.body.signed_execution_payload_bid.message.block_hash |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't this be the parent_block_hash, or would it be simpler to just call is_inclusion_list_satisfied_block here as well, similar to get_proposer_head?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think calling is_inclusion_list_satisfied_block would be better. Thanks!
|
Could we please remove gloas label from this PR, and possibly tag it with Heze? |
There's a misunderstanding. This PR is adding FOCIL to the Gloas specs. Since we decided against this, we should just close the PR. |
|
Suggest reopening and tagging with Heze now that this is CFI'd for Hegotá |
|
@jflo Thanks for suggestion! I was waiting for the headliner decision but I can make a PR that rebases EIP-7805 on Gloas. |
5 participants
This PR rebases FOCIL onto Gloas. For detailed explanation, please refer to this article, which is updated accordingly with this PR.
One thing to note is that either PTC or attesters can enforce the IL constraints. This PR chose to use PTC to achieve better beacon chain stability. However, if people found attesters is a better approach, this PR could be changed accordingly.