Skip to content
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

Explore switching from delayed agreement to immediate agreement #846

Open
rootulp opened this issue Aug 26, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Explore switching from delayed agreement to immediate agreement #846

rootulp opened this issue Aug 26, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
C:consensus related to the core consensus T:adr T:investigate Further investigation needed T:tendermint Type: upstream tendermint changes we want

Comments

@rootulp
Copy link
Collaborator

rootulp commented Aug 26, 2022

Summary

Keynote Intro to ABCI ++ by Callum Waters describes that ABCI++ will support immediate agreement (also known as immediate execution).

Context

Currently celestia-core uses delayed agreement.

Proposal

Explore what the process is for switching from delayed agreement to immediate agreement. Some high level questions that come to mind:

  1. Which release milestone (incentivized testnet, mainnet) do we want to include this feature in?
  2. Can this switch be performed on a live network?
  3. What are the pros / cons of switching?
    1. Pro: easier for developers to reason about
    2. Con: depending on when we adopt, immediate agreement is likely less battle tested than delayed agreement
  4. Are there use cases enabled by immediate agreement that aren't possible with delayed agreement?
    1. Potentially fee burn
@rootulp rootulp added T:tendermint Type: upstream tendermint changes we want T:investigate Further investigation needed C:consensus related to the core consensus T:adr labels Aug 26, 2022
@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

evan-forbes commented Aug 26, 2022

As discussed, we cannot do fee burning or ISRs without immediate execution.

the biggest blocker of this is 100% in the cosmos-sdk, as we need to be confident that the rest of the sdk modules work fine in the context and there are no weird bugs.

this extremely likely to be an after mainnet things imo

@evan-forbes
Copy link
Member

ref:
celestiaorg/celestia-app#49
#463

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C:consensus related to the core consensus T:adr T:investigate Further investigation needed T:tendermint Type: upstream tendermint changes we want
Projects
No open projects
Status: TODO
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants