zecfoundation
/
zebra
mirror of https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Remove template section from Pipelinable Block Syncing RFC (#1219) 

* remove template section and add summary
This commit is contained in:
Alfredo Garcia 2020-10-29 07:10:17 -03:00 committed by GitHub
parent 0cb8010ae7
commit 97c93daca7
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 85 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

86
book/src/dev/rfcs/0001-pipelinable-block-lookup.md
View File

@ -6,97 +6,13 @@
# Summary
[summary]: #summary
The Bitcoin network protocol used by Zcash allows nodes to download blocks from other peers. This RFC describes how we find and download this data asynchronously.
# Motivation
[motivation]: #motivation
To sync the chain, we need to find out which blocks to download and then download them. Downloaded blocks can then be fed into the verification system and (assuming they verify correctly) into the state system. In `zcashd`, blocks are processed one at a time. In Zebra, however, we want to be able to pipeline block download and verification operations, using futures to explicitly specify logical dependencies between sub-tasks, which we execute concurrently and potentially out-of-order on a threadpool. This means that the procedure we use to determine which blocks to download must look somewhat different than `zcashd`.
# Guide-level explanation
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were teaching it to another Rust programmer. That generally means:
- Introducing new named concepts.
- Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples.
- Explaining how Rust programmers should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Rust. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible.
- If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance.
- If applicable, describe the differences between teaching this to existing Rust programmers and new Rust programmers.
For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for compiler internals), this section should focus on how compiler contributors should think about the change, and give examples of its concrete impact. For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, and explain its impact in concrete terms.
# Reference-level explanation
[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that:
- Its interaction with other features is clear.
- It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented.
- Corner cases are dissected by example.
The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work.
# Drawbacks
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
Why should we *not* do this?
# Rationale and alternatives
[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
- Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
- What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
- What is the impact of not doing this?
# Prior art
[prior-art]: #prior-art
Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal.
A few examples of what this can include are:
- For language, library, cargo, tools, and compiler proposals: Does this feature exist in other programming languages and what experience have their community had?
- For community proposals: Is this done by some other community and what were their experiences with it?
- For other teams: What lessons can we learn from what other communities have done here?
- Papers: Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical background.
This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the lessons from other languages, provide readers of your RFC with a fuller picture.
If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to us whether they are brand new or if it is an adaptation from other languages.
Note that while precedent set by other languages is some motivation, it does not on its own motivate an RFC.
Please also take into consideration that rust sometimes intentionally diverges from common language features.
# Unresolved questions
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged?
- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization?
- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?
# Future possibilities
[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would
be and how it would affect the language and project as a whole in a holistic
way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible
interactions with the project and language in your proposal.
Also consider how the this all fits into the roadmap for the project
and of the relevant sub-team.
This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the
RFC you are writing but otherwise related.
If you have tried and cannot think of any future possibilities,
you may simply state that you cannot think of anything.
Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section
is not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be
in the section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs.
The section merely provides additional information.
# TODO convert this summary into the template
## Block fetching in Bitcoin
Zcash inherits its network protocol from Bitcoin. Bitcoin block fetching works roughly as follows. A node can request block information from peers using either a `getblocks` or `getheaders` message. Both of these messages contain a *block locator object* consisting of a sequence of block hashes. The block hashes are ordered from highest to lowest, and represent checkpoints along the path from the node's current tip back to genesis. The remote peer computes the intersection between its chain and the node's chain by scanning through the block locator for the first hash in its chain. Then, it sends (up to) 500 subsequent block hashes in an `inv` message (in the case of `getblocks`) or (up to) 2000 block headers in a `headers` message (in the case of `getheaders`). Note: `zcashd` reduces the `getheaders` count to 160, because Zcash headers are much larger than Bitcoin headers, as noted below.