rfc: rfcBBL209 stay strictly trustless for now.#30
Open
Ericson2314 wants to merge 1 commit intoprotocol:rfc/large-blocksfrom
Open
rfc: rfcBBL209 stay strictly trustless for now.#30Ericson2314 wants to merge 1 commit intoprotocol:rfc/large-blocksfrom
Ericson2314 wants to merge 1 commit intoprotocol:rfc/large-blocksfrom
Conversation
Rather than build off protocol#25, I think it better to do all the parts prior to protocol#25, so we have less complexity to wrap our heads around when evaluating the security properties etc. Generalizing as done with protocol#25 I agree is a good idea, but can always be done as a follow-up step.
Ericson2314
force-pushed
the
rfc/large-blocks-srictly-trustless
branch
from
0e00755 to
26bcf91
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rather than build off #25, I think it better to do all the parts prior
to #25, so we have less complexity to wrap our heads around when
evaluating the security properties etc.
Generalizing as done with #25 I agree is a good idea, but can always be
done as a follow-up step.