Pop Chunhapanya
Pop Chunhapanya
Looks like the decision on this PR has not been made yet and it's a trade-off between the benefit and the implementation complexity. If we decide to do `SingleAttestation`, why...
I think this should not be named "SingleAttestation". This should be "Attestation" while the other is "AggregatedAttestion". When people see "Attestation", they more likely think of an attestaion (a single...
When I see `column`, I literally think of a column of a table, not an index. Like when you think of a row, you think of a row that has...
I'm a bit surprised that this didn't exist in the beginning. Do we have any reason why we didn't do it in phase0? or we just didn't do it.
Should we do the same with `BlobSidecarsByRange` as well? I feel that there is no reason to do it only with one but not the other.
This seems like a breaking change? Currently if some node sets `ip6` and `tcp`, we assume that we can connect to that node with the specified IP address and TCP...
@nalepae Could you undraft the PR if it's ready for review and merge?
> @ppopth if "tcp6" is unspecified, but "tcp" is present, the client should use it. The idea with tcp6 is just to support an alternative port on v6 when it...
> Furthermore, add "and later" remarks so that `ELECTRA_FORK_VERSION` is also associated with the `deneb.BlobSidecar` type. > > This is in line with how `light-client/p2p-interface.md` is done. This is new...
I'm reluctant to merge this PR since we have never specified how to derive `ForkDigestValue` in the past gossipsub topics. I think if we want to do so, we have...