chore: modify verifier to not require eth archive node #241
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We panic in the flag's action, as well as in the verifier's constructor when this condition is not respected. This will make sure that an archival node is not required.
…ization This removes the need for running with an eth archive node.
samlaf
changed the title
epociask
reviewed
Jan 14, 2025
| @@ -121,6 +121,9 @@ The following specs are recommended for running on a single production server: | |||
| * 4 GB RAM | |||
| * 1-2 cores CPU | |||
|
|
|||
| ### Ethereum Node Requirements | |||
| The cert verification logic inside proxy used to require an archive node to fetch quorum information at reference block numbers in the past. We have removed this requirement by making the quorum parameters immutable in the EigenDAServiceManager contract. This means that a normal Ethereum node can now be used to run the proxy. See https://github.com/Layr-Labs/eigenda-proxy/issues/230 for more details. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This summary feels like something better encapsulated in release notes and within our README
| // returns an error if some problem calling the contract happens, or the hash is not found. | ||
| // We make an eth_call to the EigenDAServiceManager at the given blockNumber to retrieve the hash. | ||
| // Therefore, make sure that blockNumber is <128 blocks behind the latest block, to avoid requiring an archive node. | ||
| // This is currently enforced by having EthConfirmationDepth be <64. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we poll the latest block number and ensure it's greater than the confirmation block number?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i.e, do we care about the case where the RPC node is far behind?
epociask
reviewed
Jan 14, 2025
Comment on lines
+27
to
+30
| // ethConfirmationDepth is using to verify that a blob's batch has been bridged to the EigenDAServiceManager contract at least | ||
| // this many blocks in the past. To do so we make an eth_call to the contract at the current block_number - ethConfirmationDepth. | ||
| // Hence in order to not require an archive node, this value should be kept low. We force it to be < 64. | ||
| // waitForFinalization should be used instead of ethConfirmationDepth if the user wants to wait for finality (typically 64 blocks in happy case). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| // ethConfirmationDepth is using to verify that a blob's batch has been bridged to the EigenDAServiceManager contract at least | |
| // this many blocks in the past. To do so we make an eth_call to the contract at the current block_number - ethConfirmationDepth. | |
| // Hence in order to not require an archive node, this value should be kept low. We force it to be < 64. | |
| // waitForFinalization should be used instead of ethConfirmationDepth if the user wants to wait for finality (typically 64 blocks in happy case). | |
| // ethConfirmationDepth is used to verify that a blob's batch commitment has been bridged to the EigenDAServiceManager contract at least | |
| // this many blocks in the past. To do so we make an eth_call to the contract at the current block_number - ethConfirmationDepth. | |
| // Hence in order to not require an archive node, this value should be kept low. We force it to be < 64. | |
| // waitForFinalization should be used instead of ethConfirmationDepth if the user wants to wait for finality (typically 64 blocks in happy case). |
| // returns an error if some problem calling the contract happens, or the hash is not found. | ||
| // We make an eth_call to the EigenDAServiceManager at the given blockNumber to retrieve the hash. | ||
| // Therefore, make sure that blockNumber is <128 blocks behind the latest block, to avoid requiring an archive node. | ||
| // This is currently enforced by having EthConfirmationDepth be <64. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i.e, do we care about the case where the RPC node is far behind?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes Issue
Fixes #230
Changes proposed
Contains 2 main changes needed to remove archive node requirements:
Also updated the README with this information in cc3538f
Copying the comment on the
getQuorumParametersAtLatestBlockfunction here to highlight the solution proposed in this PR:Screenshots (Optional)
Note to reviewers
Leaving as DRAFT until we discuss whether this approach is fine, especially regarding immutability of the quorum parameters in our contracts.