-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Milestone: RLN-Relay cross-client testnet #129
Comments
cc: @oskarth Would you please have a look and let me know your thoughts? thanks |
In general it looks good! I'd say another risk is that proofs aren't compatible for some reason with Circom/Zerokit across js-waku and nwaku (e.g.). One way to derisk this early is to make sure proofs generated in JS-world can be verified in nwaku e.g. @D4nte @richard-ramos what are your thought on this? For browser side of things we should be able to use a lot of work done in zk-kit and zkitter etc.
I think to the extent this isn't blocking we can try to make sure Zerokit perf works OK. I guess incremental MT here is enough? Re ERC20 and other contract things: Considering it is different people working these things, I think we can treat ERC20 and fee as nice-to-haves, though not on critical path of milestone. I think it should be doable to have these done too assuming it is someone else working on it, and we don't have to directly use it for chat2. Ditto getting smart contract spec to draft. |
js-waku RLN work: waku-org/js-rln#1 Some comments: Proof verification is not in the scope of the first deliverable for js-waku, focus is on generating proof. This enables a user to use an RLN web-chat to participate to RLN. Proof verification can come later:
We have put generate RLN credentials in the zerokit integration first (user story 1). Should we instead do proof generation first (using RLN credentials generated by nwaku)? Meaning swap user story 1 and 2? We expect to use wallet API from the get go in js-waku (no handling of private key). I am hoping we make the web UX good enough so that a guide is not necessary :) |
I'd say the current ordering makes sense and there is no need to swap. The zero-kit integration will provide 1) RLN credential generation and 2) proof generation and verification. Considering this, I believe they both are addressable as soon as zero-kit is integrated, hence they can be part of one user story. I am not sure how using nwaku for RLN credential generation can be of help. |
One minor point regarding @fryorcraken comment for those who have not been in our yesterday call, and that is
Proof verification = spam protection |
Proof verification is user story 6. 4 & 5 are small app features. While we did not scope 6 for devcon, we should be able to achieve shortly after. |
Thank you everyone for your contribution to the second testnet, now we can officially conclude this milestone! |
Problem
We would ultimately like to get waku-rln-relay implemented in all the waku clients i.e., js, go and nim and make sure they can properly communicate with each other over the waku network via e.g., chat2 command-line application.
This is to capture the necessary steps towards this goal.
Scope
This milestone is about the second testnet of waku-rln-relay which targets cross-client communication.
In this testnet, we want to make js, go and nim chat2 clients communicate over a spam-protected content topic seemlessly.
At the bare minimum, the cross-client testnet would mirror testnet1 except that js-chat2 go-chat2 would be also part of the testnet.
[ ] Support for key store for secure persistence of rln credentials (js/nim/go)[ ] wallet integration to handle registration tx without users needing to expose their Ethereum account private keys (js/nim/go)A writeup describing the goal of the cross-client testnet, the journey, future steps, studies around performance, relation to operator outreachGiven that we are a bit short on time, we may consider the
key store
andwallet integration
optional/nice-to-have for testnet2.Risks and uncertainty
The only uncertainty is the expected deadline, given that everyone involved in this milestone is actively working on a couple of other tasks, we need to make sure the specified tasks are reasonable for the given timeline. I'd kindly ask @D4nte @richard-ramos to take a look and let me know if there is any concern about the timeline, or what is the minimum set of features feasible given the timeline.
Expected timeline: End of September prior to Devcon.
Acceptance criteria
Identified tasks to be done. The testnet2 is run, and feedbacks collected.
Out of scope
Notes and links
Future steps
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: