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

wire: Add MsgMixFactoredPoly #3247

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 11, 2024
Merged

wire: Add MsgMixFactoredPoly #3247

merged 1 commit into from
May 11, 2024

Conversation

jrick
Copy link
Member

@jrick jrick commented May 6, 2024

This message contains the result of the factored slot reservation polynomial. Clients that are capable of solving this (with optionally-installed csppsolver) will publish the result for clients that don't.

@jrick jrick force-pushed the factoredpoly branch 2 times, most recently from b03872e to 086a61b Compare May 9, 2024 14:30
@davecgh davecgh added this to the 1.9.0 milestone May 9, 2024
This message contains the result of the factored slot reservation polynomial.
Clients that are capable of solving this (with optionally-installed
csppsolver) will publish the result for clients that don't.
// message fields excluding the signature. This is the data committed to when
// the message is signed.
func (msg *MsgMixFactoredPoly) WriteSignedData(h hash.Hash) {
WriteVarString(h, MixVersion, CmdMixFactoredPoly+"-sig")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not going to hold up this PR since WriteVarString doesn't actually use the parameter currently anyway, but I have noticed in all of these that they're arguably misusing the protocol version. It is generally supposed to be passed in so that it ultimately is the negotiated protocol version. The intention of the parameter is that some future protocol version might change the semantics and thus it would need to selectively choose based on the negotiated version.

That said, I mentioned arguably previously because I guess you could argue that given this is a signature, you might want it to be stable. However, I don't believe there is anything long term that would need it to be stable in such a scenario.

@davecgh davecgh merged commit 750b23e into decred:master May 11, 2024
2 checks passed
@jrick jrick deleted the factoredpoly branch May 11, 2024 04:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants