Skip to content
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

Consensus-layer Call 129 #973

Closed
djrtwo opened this issue Feb 29, 2024 · 9 comments
Closed

Consensus-layer Call 129 #973

djrtwo opened this issue Feb 29, 2024 · 9 comments

Comments

@djrtwo
Copy link
Collaborator

djrtwo commented Feb 29, 2024

Consensus-layer Call 129

prev: call 128

Meeting Date/Time: Thursday 2024/3/7 at 14:00 UTC
Meeting Duration: 1.5 hours
Stream

  1. Deneb
  2. Electra
  3. Research, spec, etc
  4. Open Discussion/Closing Remarks
@barnabasbusa
Copy link
Member

Not urgent at all, but if we have some time it would be great to discuss keymanager API a bit.
Currently all the clients seem to have a different method of generating a token/expecting a token for an authorized validator http endpoint. This results in a bit of a mess when it comes to testing these endpoints.
Some clients will generate a token for you during launch, while others expect it to be set in a form of a file. Some expect it to be in a specific from (e.g jks keystore), while others expect it to be a basic txt file of an api token.

I think this should be properly specced out, and all client teams should default to the same authentication mechanism. (Similarly how we agreed to default to a specific jwt structure to be used between the CL and EL.

Another topic thats also pretty low priority is that we have begun doing some basic tests for mixed validator (prysm beacon + lighthouse validator, or any other combinations). It would be great to hear from some client teams if these mechanisms are expected to work or not.

@abcoathup
Copy link

@djrtwo if possible can you please include the call chat in the recording to YouTube?
Tim normally does this for ACDE. Without the chat a lot of discussion is lost, especially if people are only responding to you on the chat. (which seems to happen a lot).

Unfortunately ACD call times are incompatible with life in Australia so can't be there live.

@mkalinin
Copy link
Contributor

mkalinin commented Mar 6, 2024

I would like to quickly go over https://hackmd.io/@n0ble/eip7549_onchain_aggregates which proposes advanced on chain aggregation atop of EIP-7549, does the complexity analysis of the change and suggests the corresponding change to the configuration.

@poojaranjan
Copy link
Contributor

If time permits, I'd like to briefly share about Women in Ethereum Protocol (WiEP) .

@adietrichs
Copy link
Member

Last ACDC @casparschwa and I presented the proposal for an issuance change in Electra in connection with our research on endgame staking economics. If there is time, we would like to give a quick update on the feedback and discussions we have had around this since then.

@tersec
Copy link

tersec commented Mar 7, 2024

I'd like to gather views on produceBlockV3 and getBlockRewards scoping of rewards and penalties as summarized in https://gist.github.com/tersec/4d6326a915a2c215476c3ab5ac74b341.

@michaelneuder
Copy link

id love to take a minute or two to schedule a follow up from the first inclusion list breakout room!

the first one was very useful – see recording here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhZSunC8Epw

@djrtwo
Copy link
Collaborator Author

djrtwo commented Mar 7, 2024

@abcoathup I'm not sure I can get my streaming setup configured for that today, but I can for future calls. I'll drop a hackmd of the transcript here this time. Apologies

EDIT: got it! will be on this stream

@abcoathup
Copy link

got it! will be on this stream

@djrtwo thank you. Really appreciate it. 🙏

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants