Add EIP-7594 (PeerDAS) related changes #630
Conversation
Co-authored-by: fradamt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: fradamt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tei Im <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tei Im <[email protected]>
src/engine/osaka.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| #### Request | ||
|
|
||
| * method: `engine_getBlobsV2` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i am not sure what the relevance of this method is in peerdas unless this is meant to provide support for distributed block building https://notes.ethereum.org/@dankrad/BkJMU8d0R in which case the request/response format will fully change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if EL dosen't has all the blobs this is not useful or may be am I missing something? in distributed block building scenario the mempools will only sync their custody columns and there won't be a blob to return
so this api would essentially change towards fetching the column custodies from the EL
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those are ideas for the future, we are not going to be sharding the mempool in Fusaka.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
right, then this will be useful only if we get all blobs from the EL if my understanding is correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is correct, and it could be used to do distributed blob publishing, happen on nodes who have all the blobs available locally
fix camel case and other small changes
| - [BlobsBundleV1](#blobsbundlev1) | ||
| - [BlobAndProofV1](#blobandproofv1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - [BlobsBundleV1](#blobsbundlev1) | |
| - [BlobAndProofV1](#blobandproofv1) | |
| - [BlobsBundleV2](#blobsbundlev2) | |
| - [BlobAndProofV2](#blobandproofv2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is where the latest change is, the idea is not to bump the version of BlobsBundle and BlobAndProof message, just directly adding a new field to it, it could help simplify implementation quite a bit, and also more adhering to idiomatic protobuf conventions.
I'm working on related beacon-APIs, builder-specs changes along with example PR (both on prysm / geth) side to showcase this.
Let me know if you think otherwise (we should do it like before with new message version)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is where the latest change is, the idea is not to bump the version of BlobsBundle and BlobAndProof message, just directly adding a new field to it, it could help simplify implementation quite a bit, and also more adhering to idiomatic protobuf conventions.
I see, it's not clear to me that this makes anything simpler, it seems like bumping a version is trivial, do you mind expanding on why this would be simpler? Is there an implementation that's made complex as a result of this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah I see, this suggests not even adding a new method
engine_getPayloadV4
This might be fine then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, not only does this simplify EL side, also on CL side it avoids quite a lot of new APIs catered just to a new BlobsBundle / BlobAndProof V2 with an additional field, same applies to builder side as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
to be honest i don't see much gain on both EL and CL side by avoiding version bump, infact it add for easy validation and typestrictness with fork rather than now having both proof and cellProofs as optionals
i would recommend the version bump
0x00101010
changed the title
Summary
Introduces updates to rpc and engine API definitions for EIP-7594, changes defined in ethereum/EIPs#9378
Notes for reviewers
This PR introduces backward incompatible changes to
engine_getPayloadV4, that returns newBlobsBundleV2with cell proofs instead of blob proofs