cip: Header Pruning for LNs#279
Conversation
9ed346d to
fe1e5cb
Compare
rootulp
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM after resolving the parameter question. Given the DA network parameters aren't already in CIPs (or specs) somewhere, I suggest keeping the source of truth in code and removing the parameter from this CIP.
The rationale is that it's way easier to update the parameter in code and there is no risk of the parameter in docs becoming stale with the implementation in code.
@rootulp, rhere is SamplingWindow param that is already in CIP-4. We can tie HeaderPruningWindow to it which is 30 days for simplicity. It should though be defined based of TrustingPeriod which is 14 days(basing on @nashqueue's findings), but that's gonna be a different CIP by someone else(like @cmwaters) that will define the TrustingPeriod and resolve issues in between all the params by adjusting them. So given we have the linkable parameter in the old CIP, I believe it fine to define the new parameter in the CIP. |
|
Yeah there are already node parameters defined in CIP 4 (and we may look to adjust those soon). These are important parameters so I would also prefer to have them documented here (possibly in the same way we do core/app parameters) |
ebuchman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice. Some nits and a few stupid questions
|
@jcstein, when should we assign the number? |
|
GH applied the same suggestion from Ethan 5 times as separate commits lol |
|
@Wondertan after comments are resolved. can you please close the ones above that you've resolved with a link to the commit before resolving? thank you! then we'll assign number and get this merged. just want to make sure @ebuchman's comments are addressed! |
You mean like I did with your review? Ofc |
|
this should be good after comments are resolved @Wondertan |
|
I just realized maybe @Wondertan doesn't have permissions to resolve the comments. can you confirm? |
Co-authored-by: Josh Stein <46639943+jcstein@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Rootul P <rootulp@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ethan Buchman <ethan@coinculture.info>
Co-authored-by: Ethan Buchman <ethan@coinculture.info>
Co-authored-by: Ethan Buchman <ethan@coinculture.info>
Co-authored-by: Ethan Buchman <ethan@coinculture.info>
Co-authored-by: Ethan Buchman <ethan@coinculture.info>
numBlocksToKeep -> headersToRetain
58561af to
dbca137
Compare
|
This is RFR again |
Overview
CIP for Header Pruning. As Header Pruning breaks users, particularly by preventing historical queries(to be fixed in subsequent CIP), it was decided to promote this change to a CIP.
This CIP start a series of DA targeted CIPs to optimize bandwidth and storage usage for LN, particularly targeting overhead brought by headers.