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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

alindima: retain at rank 1 #100

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

alindima: retain at rank 1 #100

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

alindima
Copy link
Contributor

@alindima
Copy link
Contributor Author

IPFS link https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/bafybeiaxnwngaib22zbksrbe6qcjofesnhxr6kbwei3m7yyihzbxstgfxq

ggwpez
ggwpez reviewed Jan 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@ggwpez ggwpez left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Content is very good for rank 1.

Can you still please put your changes a bit into context for fellows that normally dont work on that part of the code? Just to explain what it means, why its a good idea to work on this etc.

evidence/alin/0003-alin-retain-I-2024.md

### Elastic Scaling

I have continued the implementation of [RFC103](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/pull/103), which enables having an untrusted collator
Copy link
Member

@ggwpez ggwpez Jan 2, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please explain a bit as to why this is important for Polkadot's broader mission?
It seems relevant to me, but i dont really understand what the impact is.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's important for decentralisation and resilience. More motivation is included in the RFC text:

For Elastic Scaling, it prevents anyone who has acquired a valid collation to DoS the parachain by providing the same collation to all backing groups assigned to the parachain. This can happen before the next valid parachain block is authored and will prevent the chain of candidates from being formed, reducing the throughput of the parachain to a single core.

If you agree, I wouldn't modify the text of the evaluation now, because there's already a referendum up for vote. Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to be more explicit in my next evaluation

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@ggwpez ggwpez ggwpez left review comments

@sandreim sandreim sandreim approved these changes

@acatangiu acatangiu acatangiu approved these changes

@seadanda seadanda seadanda approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@alindima @ggwpez @seadanda @acatangiu @sandreim