SSF wiki page #243
SSF wiki page #243
Conversation
|
Hi @gorondan, Following typos were found in the pull request:
ℹ️ Here's how to fix them:
|
docs/wiki/research/SSF.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| | Upgrade | URGE | Track | Topic | Cross-references | | ||
| | :-----: | :-------: | :---: | :----------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | ||
| | SSF | the Merge | - | Increase Validator count | intersection with: [MAX_EB](/docs/wiki/research/cl-upgrades.md), [ePBS](/docs/wiki/research/PBS/ePBS.md), ET | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Track could be PoS upgrades?
And topic is not increasing validator count, rather improving finality time/security/usability
Intersection could be SSLE, PBS..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Checking Vs picture again. It seems that SSF is part of the increasing validator count track. No topic tho, since there's only one topic and that overlaps with the track (in contrast to other urges e.g. scourge where there are multiple topics spread over 2 tracks).
So, I propose
- track : increasing validator count
- topic : -
Regarding intersections: SSLE seems legit. But I would keep max_eb (closely related to enabling greater validator count), and yes PBS
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The overall track here should be something like PoS Improvements and topic more specific, something like faster finalization/economic security. I don't want to leave out empty columns here, otherwise I would make them optional or remove in the template for these tables.
The picture from V shouldn't be an ultimate reference tool because it's changing and doesn't reflect all realities.
SSF makes it harder to increase validator count, the more validators, the harder the aggregation in one slot. The idea in the picture is to build on top of this to make it more effective.
docs/wiki/research/SSF.md
Outdated
| | :-----: | :-------: | :---: | :----------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | ||
| | SSF | the Merge | - | Increase Validator count | intersection with: [MAX_EB](/docs/wiki/research/cl-upgrades.md), [ePBS](/docs/wiki/research/PBS/ePBS.md), ET | | ||
|
|
||
| ## What is SSF? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## What is SSF? |
docs/wiki/research/SSF.md
Outdated
| The delay between a block's proposal and finalization also creates an opportunity for short reorgs that an attacker could use to censor certain blocks or extract MEV. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Benefits of SSF | ||
| * more convenient for apps - transactions finalization time improved by an order of magnitude, i.e. 12 seconds instead of 12 minutes means better UX for all Ethereum users |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use capital letters even in bullet points
|
|
||
| Some interaction issues between the fork choice and the consensus do remain in any such design, and it’s still important to work through them. | ||
| Short-term improvements to the existing fork choice (eg. view-merge) may also feed into work on the SSF fork choice.[^2] | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Feel free to use drawings from Francesco in this part, he shared the raw drawio file so you can edit it
Co-authored-by: Mário Havel <61149543+taxmeifyoucan@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Hi @gorondan, Following typos were found in the pull request:
ℹ️ Here's how to fix them:
|
Co-authored-by: Mário Havel <61149543+taxmeifyoucan@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Hi @gorondan, Following typos were found in the pull request:
ℹ️ Here's how to fix them:
|
|
The current page should be expanded later but it's beneficial to have it public now. |
|
Hi @gorondan, Following typos were found in the pull request:
ℹ️ Here's how to fix them:
|
Wiki PR Checklist
Thank you for contributing to the Protocol Wiki! Before you open a PR, make sure to read information for contributors and take a look at following checklist: