Rename commitment to noteHash everywhere #1408
Comments
iAmMichaelConnor
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 3, 2023
# Description The way nonces work now, there can be inconsistencies in nonce assignment in the simulator vs the private kernel. Furthermore, you cannot know during function execution what the full set of commitments will be for the whole TX as some new commitments may be nullified and squashed. But we still want the ability to determine nonces and therefore uniqueNoteHashes from L1 calldata alone. I am sure I am not explaining all of the issues well enough, but it was determined that the current nonce paradigm will not work and therefore we must rework it. Rework nonces so that siloing by contract address happens first and uniqueness comes later. For now, nonces are injeced by the private ordering circuit (vs suggestion which was base rollup circuit). Pending notes and their reads have no nonces when processed in kernel. The public kernel (and therefore all commitments created in public functions) does not use nonces. Here was Mike's proposal for the rework:  Why not just use leaf index as nonce?  ## Followup tasks * #1029 * #1194 * #1329 * #1407 * #1408 * #1409 * #1410 * Future enhancement: The root rollup circuit could insert all messages at the very beginning of the root rollup circuit, so that txs within the rollup can refer to that state root and read L1>L2 messages immediately. * #1383 * #1386 * We should implement subscription / polling methods for Aztec logs * We should maybe write rpc functions which allow calldata to be subscribed-to, keyed by tx_hash. * If a dapp wants to write a note from a public function, a lot of honus will be on a dapp developer to retain preimage information, query the blockchain, and derive the nonce. We should provide some examples to demonstrate this pattern.
AztecBot
pushed a commit
to AztecProtocol/docs
that referenced
this issue
Aug 3, 2023
# Description The way nonces work now, there can be inconsistencies in nonce assignment in the simulator vs the private kernel. Furthermore, you cannot know during function execution what the full set of commitments will be for the whole TX as some new commitments may be nullified and squashed. But we still want the ability to determine nonces and therefore uniqueNoteHashes from L1 calldata alone. I am sure I am not explaining all of the issues well enough, but it was determined that the current nonce paradigm will not work and therefore we must rework it. Rework nonces so that siloing by contract address happens first and uniqueness comes later. For now, nonces are injeced by the private ordering circuit (vs suggestion which was base rollup circuit). Pending notes and their reads have no nonces when processed in kernel. The public kernel (and therefore all commitments created in public functions) does not use nonces. Here was Mike's proposal for the rework:  Why not just use leaf index as nonce?  ## Followup tasks * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1029 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1194 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1329 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1407 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1408 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1409 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1410 * Future enhancement: The root rollup circuit could insert all messages at the very beginning of the root rollup circuit, so that txs within the rollup can refer to that state root and read L1>L2 messages immediately. * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1383 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1386 * We should implement subscription / polling methods for Aztec logs * We should maybe write rpc functions which allow calldata to be subscribed-to, keyed by tx_hash. * If a dapp wants to write a note from a public function, a lot of honus will be on a dapp developer to retain preimage information, query the blockchain, and derive the nonce. We should provide some examples to demonstrate this pattern.
4 tasks
Maddiaa0
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 7, 2023
Closes #1194 Closes #1363 Will likely rename getCommitment alongside all instances of "commitment" as a part of this other issue: #1408 # Checklist: Remove the checklist to signal you've completed it. Enable auto-merge if the PR is ready to merge. - [x] If the pull request requires a cryptography review (e.g. cryptographic algorithm implementations) I have added the 'crypto' tag. - [x] I have reviewed my diff in github, line by line and removed unexpected formatting changes, testing logs, or commented-out code. - [x] Every change is related to the PR description. - [x] I have [linked](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue) this pull request to relevant issues (if any exist). --------- Co-authored-by: Michael Connor <mike@aztecprotocol.com>
superstar0402
added a commit
to superstar0402/aztec-nr
that referenced
this issue
Aug 16, 2024
# Description The way nonces work now, there can be inconsistencies in nonce assignment in the simulator vs the private kernel. Furthermore, you cannot know during function execution what the full set of commitments will be for the whole TX as some new commitments may be nullified and squashed. But we still want the ability to determine nonces and therefore uniqueNoteHashes from L1 calldata alone. I am sure I am not explaining all of the issues well enough, but it was determined that the current nonce paradigm will not work and therefore we must rework it. Rework nonces so that siloing by contract address happens first and uniqueness comes later. For now, nonces are injeced by the private ordering circuit (vs suggestion which was base rollup circuit). Pending notes and their reads have no nonces when processed in kernel. The public kernel (and therefore all commitments created in public functions) does not use nonces. Here was Mike's proposal for the rework:  Why not just use leaf index as nonce?  ## Followup tasks * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1029 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1194 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1329 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1407 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1408 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1409 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1410 * Future enhancement: The root rollup circuit could insert all messages at the very beginning of the root rollup circuit, so that txs within the rollup can refer to that state root and read L1>L2 messages immediately. * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1383 * AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1386 * We should implement subscription / polling methods for Aztec logs * We should maybe write rpc functions which allow calldata to be subscribed-to, keyed by tx_hash. * If a dapp wants to write a note from a public function, a lot of honus will be on a dapp developer to retain preimage information, query the blockchain, and derive the nonce. We should provide some examples to demonstrate this pattern.
superstar0402
added a commit
to superstar0402/aztec-nr
that referenced
this issue
Aug 16, 2024
Closes AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1194 Closes AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1363 Will likely rename getCommitment alongside all instances of "commitment" as a part of this other issue: AztecProtocol/aztec-packages#1408 # Checklist: Remove the checklist to signal you've completed it. Enable auto-merge if the PR is ready to merge. - [x] If the pull request requires a cryptography review (e.g. cryptographic algorithm implementations) I have added the 'crypto' tag. - [x] I have reviewed my diff in github, line by line and removed unexpected formatting changes, testing logs, or commented-out code. - [x] Every change is related to the PR description. - [x] I have [linked](https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue) this pull request to relevant issues (if any exist). --------- Co-authored-by: Michael Connor <mike@aztecprotocol.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Also be explicit about inner/siloed/uniqueSiloed
Also consider renaming getCommitment to checkForNoteHash or checkNoteHashExists something similar.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: