docs: cip for tx limits #226
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note this PR closes celestiaorg/celestia-app#3970
Thanks for putting this up. I think it's safe to merge but it would be nice if @ninabarbakadze added more details before we move this from draft.
cips/cip-tx-limits.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Rationale | ||
|
|
||
| The rationale for this proposal is to set the transaction size limit to 2MiB, even with 8MiB blocks, to prevent issues with gossiping large transactions. Gossiping an 8MiB transaction without chunking could be detrimental to the network. This is a consensus-breaking change. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ninabarbakadze can you elaborate here on why we implemented this as a consensus breaking change instead of modifying the default mempool MaxTxBytes to 2 MiB?
I asked about it in a few places (Slack) and celestiaorg/celestia-app#3686 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll wait on feedback until tomorrow and plan to get draft in then. Thank you @ninabarbakadze and @rootulp !
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because every node can set the default to any value they choose to and afaik we don't know the effect large transactions are going to have on the network so in my understanding it's preventative. cc @evan-forbes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed the motivation for the change is preventative.
because every node can set the default to any value they choose to
Nodes can override the default but I expect most nodes will use the default. Assuming most nodes use the default config, transactions larger than 2 MiB won't be included in blocks so blob submitters will continue submitting blobs <= 2 MiB so that their blobs get included in blocks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with you but it seemed like we wanted to have a hard limit on it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, I'm wondering why did we want the hard limit? The non-consensus breaking change is still preventative.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested revision below: #226 (comment)
cips/cip-28.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Security Considerations | ||
|
|
||
| This proposal does not introduce any new security risks. However, it does impact network behavior and user experience, which should be carefully considered during implementation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any changes to the block validity rules (via PrepareProposal and ProcessProposal) introduce implementation risks that could potentially lead to a chain halt.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested revision below: #226 (comment)
Overview
Closes celestiaorg/celestia-app#3970