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

Tracking: Official support for mining RPCs in Zebra #7366

Closed
9 of 17 tasks
mpguerra opened this issue Aug 22, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed
9 of 17 tasks

Tracking: Official support for mining RPCs in Zebra #7366

mpguerra opened this issue Aug 22, 2023 · 6 comments
Labels
C-feature Category: New features C-tracking-issue Category: This is a tracking issue for other tasks

Comments

@mpguerra
Copy link
Contributor

mpguerra commented Aug 22, 2023

Motivation

We want to officially support mining functionality in zebra by making it available on the stable Zebra docker image.

Before we are comfortable doing this we might want to do some of the following:

Scope

Making getblocktemplate-rpcs a default feature

Potential security issues

Related work

Optional

Performance improvements

Usability

Tech debt

This is an exhaustive list that will need to be triaged and prioritised further.

@mpguerra mpguerra added C-tracking-issue Category: This is a tracking issue for other tasks C-feature Category: New features labels Aug 22, 2023
@teor2345
Copy link
Collaborator

teor2345 commented Aug 22, 2023

These aren't related to performance, they are for detecting bugs in our proposal construction.

But since we haven't seen any invalid proposals for a long time, I think we should close these tickets, and open tickets for any specific proposal bugs that actually happen.

@teor2345
Copy link
Collaborator

I think these cleanups can be turned into TODOs in the code instead, and we can fix them if we modify that code in future.

@teor2345
Copy link
Collaborator

This is a usability issue, not really technical debt. Currently Zebra panics, which is ok, but warning and ignoring the unused config fields would (possibly) be better for some users.

The drawback is that users who expect Zebra to fail if the Zebra version or config is wrong will be surprised.

@mpguerra
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think these cleanups can be turned into TODOs in the code instead, and we can fix them if we modify that code in future.

I'm thinking this will require a PR and review cycle anyway (albeit a shorter one than actually fixing it) and will therefore languish in our backlog as a result

@teor2345
Copy link
Collaborator

I think these cleanups can be turned into TODOs in the code instead, and we can fix them if we modify that code in future.

I'm thinking this will require a PR and review cycle anyway (albeit a shorter one than actually fixing it) and will therefore languish in our backlog as a result

I honestly don't think it matters either way. We might be more likely to do the change if there's a TODO near the code we're modifying anyway. But since it's not an important change, it doesn't really matter how likely we are to do it.

@mpguerra
Copy link
Contributor Author

We are done here for now 🎉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-feature Category: New features C-tracking-issue Category: This is a tracking issue for other tasks
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants