Add engine_getBlobsV1 route to cancun #560
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add route to expose the execution blob mempool to the consensus client.
If a block happens to include well propagated blob transactions, the consensus client can use this route to speed up the time to head. It reduces re-orgs rates and equalizes profitability for stakers with poor bandwidth or latencies.
Longer rationale: https://hackmd.io/@dapplion/blob_fetch, original idea by @michaelsproul
To batch or not
Should this route return multiple blobs or a single one? I went for multiple since we already have the BlobBundle type and fits better to this use-case, which is all or nothing. But I can see the argument to have
engine_getBloband let the consumer decide what to do if some of the versionHashes are missing.