-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
[review] MIP-71: Informer V1 for the Operation of the Lock/Mint Native Bridge #71
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
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.
I think a section is missing describing that the Informer is specifically a trusted off-chain service that is operated by movement labs and that this separate binary runs in its own process so as not to effect the relayer. Furthermore, It can only publish notifications or messages with which another service can attach (like a PagerDuty).
MIP/mip-71/README.md
Outdated
|
||
The timestamps of the two layers are not synchronized. We assume that the difference is negligible, however, for correctness, the implications of a drift between the L1 and L2 clocks should be considered. Moreover, the clocks of the layers progress discretely. This means that the Informer reads events from L1 and L2 with slightly different time stamps. This timestamp difference can introduce errors in the calculation of circulating token. | ||
|
||
It is recommended that the Informer SHOULD not rely on timestamps. |
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.
What then, if not timestamps from the chain(s)?
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.
fair point.. i removed the sentence
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.
So we are going to use timestamps then? Your concern was that timestamps may not be accurate across chains. If we can't rely on timestamps I do wonder what else we could. Perhaps this is an assumption, that timestamps are accurate enough.
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 this is where postconfirmations may come into play, which forces some sort of synchronization. Essentially since L1-finalized postconfirmations take O(12min), transfers also increase in time for L1->L2 transfers. It is fair to assume that with such large time windows the clocks are sufficiently close. The only insecurity arises for inflight tokens which is not relevant for Informer V1. Long term we will study the implications. @franck44 may be following up on this and look into it using UPPAAL
Co-authored-by: Richard Melkonian <[email protected]>
Summary
MD-71
MIP-71