Rootul P

> along with adding a builtin prevention against the woods attack. Another proposal that would build in prevention against the woods attack is https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/issues/1377 > While we could simply imply...

> efficient packing vs ordering the highest paid blobs Assuming a block proposer is incentivized to maximize profit, they can do so by efficiently packing blobs in the data square....

Per two onsite meetings, this issue seems resolvable. We concluded that we'd like to move forward with adopting ADR 13 which should make it extremely unlikely that validators rearrange blobs...

[ADR-20](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/blob/main/docs/architecture/adr-020-deterministic-square-construction.md) refactored square construction to be deterministic so block proposers can't tamper with the ordering. PFB transactions in the PFB namespace are ordered by priority (a.k.a gas price) and blobs...

> Is this enforced in a consensus critical way? Yes because if a consensus node attempts to tamper with the order of blobs, the resulting data root will conflict with...

Ahh I see what you're saying. Given: pfbTxA with gas price 10 and namespace 1 pfbTxB with gas price 100 and namespace 1 the proposer by default will reap these...

Notes from call: - Is this useful to any other external teams? - The `cel-key` binary can already sign bytes - Expands celestia-node's API surface area - Does celestia-node binary...

We may not want to do this if we frequently get requests from teams to update the list because making the param unmodifiable by governance means that the list can...

Related: https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/issues/3857 we can get more visibility on the error with PFBs if we bump ibc-go

Closing for now as won't do