-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
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
What are the benefits of IgnoreMaxNamespace
?
#117
Comments
We also discussed of putting this feature into the wrapper as it is kinda confusing without the use-case/Celestia context. That said, it would make the wrapper probably even more complex and confusing too though. |
afaiu, this is true, but would make the proving more complex. I'm not really sure of the tradeoff space here. |
Two benefits described by @liamsi
1 is an optimization and 2 doesn't seem like a requirement so it may be possible to remove the |
@staheri14 mentioned that the |
FWIW this feature appears to have been added in 8a5e167 which doesn't list a rationale or motivating issue. |
Issues that become obsolete if we remove this feature: |
No longer a candidate because celestia-node assumes the EDS row roots are constructed with In other words, downstream consumers of this library make use of this option. |
Context
nmt/nmt.go
Lines 33 to 40 in 4276d17
Candidates
It appears to reduce the range of an NMT root. Does the reduction in range of an NMT root benefit light clients? Since celestia light clients download the data availability header which contains all row roots, it knows the range of namespaces for each row so it can determine an upper bound for the range of row 2 by looking at the minimum namespace ID of row 3 (even if
IgnoreMaxNamespace=false
).One other benefit: does
IgnoreMaxNamespace=true
reduce the size of an NMT proof by one node?Questions
Is it necessary to support this feature?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: