Callum Waters
Callum Waters
> ultimately, which mechanism is best I think would be highly dependant on how the fork choice rule for a rollup is proved. This is more concretely a question of...
I think I'm slightly more in favour of option 1
> Also how would the tx index actually be structured? It wouldn't be the tx index but the share index of the first share exactly as we have it now...
> Option 2 would involve making a new namespace version so wouldn't necessarily be breaking. That's a good point, we could have blobs that include the signer and blobs that...
So my understanding currently is there are two categories of users: 1. Rollup full nodes which must process all blobs on a namespace 2. Rollup light nodes which would want...
I just had a look now and you might be right. Perhaps this was from before when we split the transactions and would process all non-pfbs before pfb transactions. It...
## Update Summarising the conversations from within this issue (and a few outside this issue), I have split this issue up into two new issues that I think better capture...
It's not a fix so much as an optimization. It does look like something worth backporting if we don't implement compact blocks first. This looks like a breaking change so...
> Why do light nodes need a consensus critical minimum upgrade height? They don't. This mechanism is to ensure that enough non-validators have upgraded before the network upgrades by setting...
Adding some minimum height is a bit tricky. For example with the v2 upgrade you would already need to add some height for when v3 upgrades is permitted which is...