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

CPS-0017? | Settlement Speed #922

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bwbush
Copy link

@bwbush bwbush commented Oct 4, 2024

This CPS defined the settlement problem for Cardano and supports CIPs like Peras, Anti-Grinding, and changes to the active-slot coefficient.


(rendered latest document)

@bwbush bwbush marked this pull request as ready for review October 4, 2024 15:17
@Ryun1 Ryun1 changed the title CPS for "Fast Settlement" CPS-???? | Settlement Speed Oct 5, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@rphair rphair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bwbush @abailly very good to see this, as a problem statement as well as another item for the growing Consensus category (please contribute about the related issue #898 when you can).

Though there are some TODO's I'm marking this for introduction at the next CIP meeting so the community can start following & participating: https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/98

CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rphair rphair added State: Triage Applied to new PR afer editor cleanup on GitHub, pending CIP meeting introduction. Category: Consensus Proposals belonging to the `Consensus` category. labels Oct 7, 2024
CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Arnaud Bailly and others added 2 commits October 7, 2024 15:55
Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
There are several definitions of "settlement" or "finality", and precision is important when discussing these. Two noteworthy scenarios can be defined precisely.

- *Ex ante* settlement probability: "What is the probability that a transaction that I just submitted will ever be rolled back?"
- *Post facto* settlement probability: "Given that I submitted my transaction $x$ seconds ago and it has not yet been rolled back, what is the probability that it will ever be rolled back?"
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nitpicking: wouldn't ex post be a better counterpart to ex ante?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are not the two scenarios just the same, where the first scenario is just the case x = 0?

CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Even better would be to have an on-chain indication that transactions up to a particular point have been settled with high probability.

If one is unwilling or unable to re-submit a rolled-back transaction, then the *ex ante* probability might be of most interest. This matches use cases where there is no opportunities for the parties involved in a transaction to resubmit it: for example, one party might have purchased physical goods and left the vendor's premises, leaving no chance to resubmit a rolled-back transaction.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

suggestion: move use cases examples before the definition of ex ante/post facto to help the reader put the definitions in context

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This might make sense, but it violates the CPS template.

Copy link
Collaborator

@rphair rphair Nov 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ghost @bwbush - moving the entire Use Cases section before the Problem section would definitely run against the template, but we do have precedent for moving some brief examples before a detailed specification (as in CIP-0013). The guideline I think authors & editors should use: Does it improve reader comprehension, while avoiding duplication of content or ideas?

CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@rphair rphair added State: Confirmed Candiate with CIP number (new PR) or update under review. and removed State: Triage Applied to new PR afer editor cleanup on GitHub, pending CIP meeting introduction. labels Oct 15, 2024
@rphair rphair changed the title CPS-???? | Settlement Speed CPS-0017? | Settlement Speed Oct 15, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@rphair rphair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bwbush the CIP meeting today was in consensus that this problem statement is valid & that this document will keep moving forward. Please update the CPS number and rename the containing directory accordingly (and also please update the document link in the first posting). 🚀

CPS-0STL/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
bwbush and others added 3 commits November 13, 2024 10:17
Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
- Change "post facto" to "ex post facto" throughout.
- Included suggested changes to text.
- Added reference to Midnight and Bitcoin OS bridges.
- Slightly strengthened discussion of use cases.
- Removed outstanding "to do" notes.
@bwbush
Copy link
Author

bwbush commented Nov 13, 2024

@rphair, a4960f0 addresses all of the outstanding reviewer comments and strengthens the text in several places.

There was a suggestion to move the use-case section upward, but I didn't do that because it would clash with the CPS template.

suggestion: move use cases examples before the definition of ex ante/post facto to help the reader put the definitions in context

@rphair
Copy link
Collaborator

rphair commented Nov 14, 2024

very good then @bwbush let's put this on Review for the next CIP meeting (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/101) and hopefully confirm this should be promoted to Last Check then.

@rphair
Copy link
Collaborator

rphair commented Dec 16, 2024

@Ryun1 @perturbing - did we have a reason not to promise this to Last Check at meeting # 101? I can't recall a reason why we didn't. If nobody else can either, I'd suggest we tag this Last Check so we can merge it in the new year if no further reservations.

@bwbush please let me emphasise, as I posted in #922 (comment), that moving up an illustrative example or two (to precede the full inventory of Use Cases) would not be a violation of the CPS template as supposed in #922 (comment): so you could follow that suggestion, or not, as you see fit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Category: Consensus Proposals belonging to the `Consensus` category. State: Confirmed Candiate with CIP number (new PR) or update under review.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants