kaiserd
kaiserd
> @kaiserd @easye What is the status of this? This was planned as the follow up task for @easye after #524 and #512 have been merged. So far, work on...
Thanks for starting this PR. Imo, the focus should be on aspects that are important for implementors. So, the more background related sections could be left as placeholders / filled...
I'd suggest adding a section for `Wire Format Specification / Syntax` after `Exposition of Snow-family Consensus Models` ( In #488, I generically described what could/should be in that section.) Also...
> > It should explain to the reader at a glance why a new consensus mechanism is even needed. > The more the merrier? Seriously, without a whole slew of...
> What would be an example of a spec being considered "verified"? We would have to define the exact prerequisites. One possibility: Either formally verified, or in-the-wild tested by several...
Agreed. We can keep this in icebox until it becomes relevant for our current specs.
Agree with @jm-clius PX also has anonymity problems as listed in the RFC, but this is more explicit because nodes opt in to use PX, whereas gossipsub peer exchange happens...
@Menduist Thank you again for the suggestion to use lightpush as the stem phase protocol! :sparkle: I will switch this PR to draft state and revise the RFC as follows...
I specified lightpush as the stem phase protocol in 69a09390499 Also did some editing and added more security considerations. This concludes my revision of the RFC for now and the...
Thank you for the feedback :).