-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
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
CIP-18: Standardised Gas and Pricing Estimation Interface #100
Conversation
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.
Overall LGTM! Really well written
cips/cip-tx-interface.md
Outdated
|
||
The effectiveness of a "standardised" interface depends on the willingness of current and future clients to adopt it as well as the willingness of teams to provide those services. To set a sufficient precendent, both the Node API within `celestia-node` and the consensus node within `celestia-app` will implement client and server implementations respectively, creating an interface between the existing line of communication. That way by default, light nodes will use that API with the trusted provider they are already using for transaction submission. | ||
|
||
The consensus node will use the SimulateTx method to estimate the gas used and use the `min_gas_price` parameter within state as the `estimated_gas_price` |
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 think SimulateTx
is often used in conjunction with
--gas-adjustment float adjustment factor to be multiplied against the estimate returned by the tx simulation; if the gas limit is set manually this flag is ignored (default 1)
so should the initial implementation return the direct output of SimulateTx
or multiplied by some factor (i.e. 1.1
or 1.2
)?
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 don't have strong feelings on this. I would lean towards multiplying by 1.1
cips/cip-tx-interface.md
Outdated
title: Standardised Gas and Pricing Estimation Interface | ||
description: A standardised interface for estimating gas usage and gas pricing for transactions | ||
author: Callum Waters (@cmwaters) | ||
discussions-to: URL |
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.
Note: this needs a URL pre-merge.
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 haven't yet created the forum post but will do that today
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
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.
CIP content LGTM!
I think the CIP editors need to do the following before it can be merged:
- assign a CIP number
- rename the file
- add it to the table of contents in the README
Overview
I have submitted this as part of the
Interface
category, but it may be better suited as a CRC. Let me know and I can easily change itChecklist