Skip to content
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

Storage node & protocol #359

Closed
sync-by-unito bot opened this issue May 27, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Storage node & protocol #359

sync-by-unito bot opened this issue May 27, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@sync-by-unito
Copy link

sync-by-unito bot commented May 27, 2021

We need to define the public API and the protocol to interact with a storage node.

This also plays into data availability (which might be started being spec'ed out in #2) as consensus participants (validators) that do not want to be storage nodes themselves will need to query them for data availability.

Quoting @musalbas here:

So there should be an option to run:
a) validator that is also a storage node
b) storage node only
c) validator that just uses data availability proofs
d) light clients that use data availability proofs

┆Issue is synchronized with this Asana task by Unito

@sync-by-unito
Copy link
Author

sync-by-unito bot commented May 27, 2021

➤ Ismail Khoffi commented:

> c) validator that just uses data availability proofs

Question: this was still assuming that there is no state in the LL main chain? Wouldn't validators still verify validity of transactions while they could only use data availability proofs for the messages the transactions pay for (@musalbas).

also ref: celestiaorg/celestia-specs#22 ( celestiaorg/celestia-specs#22 ) and #35 ( #35 )

@sync-by-unito
Copy link
Author

sync-by-unito bot commented May 27, 2021

➤ Mustafa Al-Bassam commented:

I consider the LL token app to logically be an optimistic rollup sidechain. Therefore validators can just download the latest state root for it and accept state transition fraud proofs.

@liamsi liamsi closed this as completed May 27, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant