-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 325
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this 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
Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
CPS-0STL/README.md
Outdated
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?" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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Outdated
|
||
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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this 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). 🚀
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.
@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.
|
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 |
@Ryun1 @perturbing - did we have a reason not to promise this to @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. |
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)