-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
feat(spec): discussion of consensus getValue()
function
#760
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great. Thanks! I have left two comments...
> A priori, every process running a consensus height could provide its proposed | ||
> value for that height, but this approach has some disadvantages: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder whether we should add a bullet point on the Starknet usecase, where it is expensive to compute a proposal (if it must contain a ZK proof), and therefore only the scheduled proposers of round 0 should do that to optimize on the normal case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a bullet point with this example.
Co-authored-by: Josef Widder <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel <[email protected]>
Part of #761.
PR author checklist
For all contributors
For external contributors