Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
create proofs with post state #384
create proofs with post state #384
Changes from all commits
c4d7e93
c06692a
ceb476d
9ed4dce
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
One question: here
keys
is the same set of keys used for pre-state and post-state proving.But if the block execution read 1000 keys but only wrote into 1 key; shouldn't
keys
in this line only have 1 key instead of the 1000 ones? If that isn't the case, that would probably mean thatproof_(c/f/y/z)s
will have duplicate cuadruples.As in, in the post-state VKT, there will be keys in
keys
that have the same value as in the pre-state VKT (e.g: 999 in this example). So, that means that there will be many repeated openings.Maybe I'm a bit confused.
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.
Well the opening themselves will not be integrated to the proof. But you are correct that they will be computed. This is reusing a function that does too much, and at the end values that are just read will find themselves in the proof. This is not incorrect but it's much more than necessary.
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.
Not going to fix it in this PR, created #393 to track it.
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.
I still feel this
if
is a bit strange. We're reconstructing thevalues
to be assigned in the leaf when we'll soon create the LeafNode.But see what we do in
CreatePath(...)
:value
slice as expected.stemInfo
.Is the latter needed? Or a noop? Or maybe I'm missing something.
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.
yeah I can't remember why that is, and removing it seems to work. I won't remove it in this PR but I'm making a note of it in #395