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.

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

feat(feature-activation): add transactions RFC #63

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

Conversation

glevco
Copy link
Contributor

@glevco glevco commented Aug 9, 2023

Rendered

Acceptance Criteria

  • Add new Feature Activation for Transactions RFC (linked above)
  • Add previous incomplete RFC iterations

ATTENTION: @msbrogli @jansegre it's not necessary to read all 4 files in this PR, only the rendered one linked above. The other two files are incomplete/wrong ideas that are kept just for reference.

@glevco glevco self-assigned this Aug 9, 2023
@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch 4 times, most recently from 4bf4b6a to 488b229 Compare August 12, 2023 16:51
@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch 3 times, most recently from 813a1ed to d50a352 Compare August 21, 2023 16:35
@glevco glevco marked this pull request as ready for review August 21, 2023 16:35
@glevco glevco requested review from msbrogli and jansegre August 21, 2023 16:36
@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch 3 times, most recently from c31f715 to 2465a8b Compare September 13, 2023 22:43
@glevco glevco requested a review from msbrogli September 13, 2023 22:53
jansegre
jansegre previously approved these changes Oct 5, 2023
@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch from 2465a8b to 5262e37 Compare October 25, 2023 14:06
@glevco glevco requested a review from jansegre October 25, 2023 17:13
@glevco glevco added the design label Oct 25, 2023
@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch 2 times, most recently from 000f40c to f41ab7c Compare January 18, 2024 14:02
@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch from f41ab7c to ec5eff6 Compare January 23, 2024 20:53

Therefore, the mutability of transaction parents is not an issue for the solution proposed in this document.

## Selection of transaction parents
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same here: move to the Guide-level explanation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I also think that this is just an implementation detail that should be in the reference level, not guide level.

Copy link
Member

@msbrogli msbrogli Mar 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We must at least mention that the parent selection will be critical to enable new features. Even though the DAG width is usually low, it might happen to be high and transactions might fail due to a poor parent selection. The low level should cover on the details of how this selection should take place. This part is critical for wallets. In the low leve, we might even consider to make the full node select nodes that have activated features (instead of simply randomly choosing from the tips).

@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch from ec5eff6 to c46bfbd Compare November 4, 2024 18:41
@glevco glevco force-pushed the feat/feature-activation/transactions branch from c46bfbd to b631014 Compare March 5, 2025 15:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
Status: In Progress (Done)
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants