Ismail Khoffi
Ismail Khoffi
Regarding the range proof format for the NMT, here is how I think they should look like: ```go // Proof represents proof of a namespace.ID in an NMT. // In...
Yes, exactly. I think the name is appropriate because each subtree root is also a node in the tree, hence `proof.Nodes()`. `proof.SubtreeRoots()` would also be good.
> Note that to prove absence we need to provide the leafHashes too. Don't we always just need a single leaf to prove absence of a namespace? Explanation: https://github.com/lazyledger/nmt/pull/3#discussion_r464431192
ref: https://github.com/lazyledger/lazyledger-core/issues/307#issuecomment-830673091
I'm not sure the spec is the right place for this but we should also clearly articulate the security model for both. I think in some places we do still...
Just leaving this here as this briefly summarizes the desired security model - I guess it's kinda obvious but just want to capture it somewhere briefly as I'm sure this...
Just for my understanding: will this include how we use ipfs?
> Fraud proofs for columns are slightly larger. The question is how much larger in the worst-case and how often do we expect this to happen (and who is impacted...
same: https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-specs/issues/128#issuecomment-989082133
I think this is still useful but these diagrams are not necessary to live in the specs repository but for developer focused documentation. Let's aim for testnet and incentivized testnet...