Add EIP: Light client data backfill #8341
Conversation
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
etan-status
force-pushed
the
ef-backfill
branch
from
4cf1cf8 to
8d9a323
Compare
eth-bot
added
e-consensus
|
The commit 8d9a323 (as a parent of aa3ae6f) contains errors. |
EIPS/eip-####.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| --- | |
| --- | |
| eip: 7658 |
Assigning next sequential EIP/ERC/RIP number.
Numbering changed to sequential from 7500.
Please also update the filename.
EIPS/eip-####.md
Outdated
| title: Light client data backfill | ||
| description: Mechanism for syncing light client data | ||
| author: Etan Kissling (@etan-status) | ||
| discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-light-client-data-backfill/19290 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-light-client-data-backfill/19290 | |
| discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-7658-light-client-data-backfill/19290 |
etan-status
force-pushed
the
ef-backfill
branch
from
8d9a323 to
ff6c0cb
Compare
github-actions
bot
added
c-new
| Once the data is available in the `BeaconState`, a light client data backfill protocol could be defined that serves, for past periods: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. A `LightClientUpdate` from requested `period` + 1 that proves that the entirety of `period` is finalized. | ||
| 2. `BeaconState.historical_summaries[period].block_summary_root` at (1)'s `attested_header.beacon.state_root` + Merkle proof. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
also can we use current beacon state to look for block summary root as well ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The "current" beacon state is not signed by the sync committee, so basing this on attested_header's BeaconState makes more sense. Also, the full historical block / state roots (not just summary) are only available for recent history.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
current meaning from where we are starting backfill assuming its a trusted point right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes. as it's a backward sync direction, trust is implicitly there.
Co-authored-by: g11tech <develop@g11tech.io>
No description provided.