Repository navigation
Update EIP-4844: Update eip-4844.md - #7041
Closed
ralexstokes wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
ralexstokes wants to merge 1 commit into
ralexstokes wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Reflect lists of proofs per blob and allude to an optimized routine, rather than write text that suggests we only have one proof (following the optimized routine)
Collaborator
File
|
Member
|
closed via #7038 |
This file contains hidden or 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
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
My understanding is that we have moved away from having a single aggregate proof included in the network wrapper and now instead send one proof per blob.
There is an accelerated way to verify the entire batch (cf. https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/dev/specs/deneb/polynomial-commitments.md#verify_blob_kzg_proof_batch) but it seems that it is in the spirit of the EIP to leave this out of scope. I think the current text was left over during an edit done previously.