Revert changes to the PartSetHeader and BlockID #510
Conversation
| BlockID: blockID, | ||
| POLRound: polRound, | ||
| Timestamp: tmtime.Now(), | ||
| DAHeader: daH, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is orthogonal to this PR but:
Why does the DAHeader need to be part of the proposal again? Is that the case in the specs? cc @adlerjohn
It's certainly not used for sampling during consensus. And if the proposer should commit to the erasured data, isn't that given by the header hash (which includes the data root) instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering the same thing. I defo don't think we need it. Reverting that might be slighty more complicated, as there have been quite a few changes since we merged #248 . We might want to revert that later or "manually" (not using git revert).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The specs should be changed as needed to conform to the new Tendermint-as-black-box approach, so it's not really relevant in this time to chaos what the specs say. Since it's no longer necessary for validators to sample data, and since validators will in the happy path download the entire block data via parts, there's not much need anymore to include the DAH in the proposal. Note that the unhappy fallback case involves validator and other full nodes attempting to reconstruct the block by sampling individual shares until recovery is possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, but there is still some nuance on what the validators should sing during consensus, right?
Are you tracking the changes on the spec side for the tendermint-as-black-box approach? Or should we just build the thing first and update the specs later only?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the the DAH won't be in the Proposal or in the block, then I'm assuming that each validator/full node will have to recreate the DAH using the block data?
If so, should we keep the DAH in BlockMeta, or should we save it separately?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you tracking the changes on the spec side for the tendermint-as-black-box approach? Or should we just build the thing first and update the specs later only?
Build the thing first, then I'll do a pass after my vacation and make sure the specs and impl are aligned.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the the DAH won't be in the Proposal or in the block, then I'm assuming that each validator/full node will have to recreate the DAH using the block data?
Wait, isn't the DAH in the block, and gossiped as parts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wait, isn't the DAH in the block, and gossiped as parts?
Yes! but we're thinking of getting rid of that too I think. I can't find the comment in ADR 007, but it was removed from the list of minimal changes to tendermint because it was not strictly necessay. This reminds that we did not discuss that properly, and totally should, so I'll open an issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Evan. IMO, there is no need to gossip the DAH as part of the block parts. The partsetheader already authenticates the Block and the receiving nodes can reconstruct the the DAH. But I might be missing sth here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Evan! This looks good to me and will make upgrading from upstream simpler.
I'm wondering if we should also remove the DAHeader from the proposal now (https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-core/pull/510/files#r694342674).
Description
simply reverts changes to the partsetheader and the blockID
PartSetHeaderfor Votes and remove it from theHeader#457Closes: #509, #335
Blocking: #492