-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 920
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
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
p2p: Decouple ChainID from DA networkID #2548
Comments
That sound very wrong. What's motivation behind this? |
@Wondertan @musalbas, @liamsi and I had a conversation about this 2 days ago where @musalbas mentioned that it should be possible to run several DA networks against 1 core consensus network. This would require us decoupling the concept of a ChainID from a DA network ID. The solution is quite small non-invasive. I will be linking the PR shortly. The While it does sound "wrong", it should still be possible for us to upgrade the DA network via changing the network ID without having to do the same for core network. |
What's the goal though? To me it seems counter directive when we actively discuss the path towards merging both both networks, but end up decoupling those even more. What's the problem here? Were other solutions analysed? |
@Wondertan yeah it seems counterintuitive when the goal is to move towards a merged network, but until we have it, it's nice to be able to decouple DA network upgrades from core network upgrades. The problem here was more theoretical when discussing arabica-9 upgrade to latest RC: we have a breaking change to @musalbas said it's "cleaner" to just upgrade the network ID (which I don't fully agree with because I still don't think we need to partition the network to that degree just for one of the node's protocol upgrades -- headerex, shrex-eds both stay the same). Regardless, we both agreed on the point that it should be possible to run more than one DA network against a core network (in the case someone wants to spin up a test DA network against the data of a real chain - or in the unlikely case of a catastrophic failure/critical bug in DA network that requires a networkID bump, like an issue with header format maybe or with dependency). |
@renaynay, appreciate your detailed response❤️ |
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
Make it possible for DA network to run a different ID than the core chain ID (but still use the core chain ID within the DA network ID)
Also another issue found - it's possible to run a bridge node against core with a different chain ID.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: