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

Remove Epoch 0 #1265

Closed
Tracked by #2004
bengtlofgren opened this issue Mar 29, 2023 · 4 comments
Closed
Tracked by #2004

Remove Epoch 0 #1265

bengtlofgren opened this issue Mar 29, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@bengtlofgren
Copy link
Contributor

As @juped mentioned, we should not have an epoch 0. It makes sense for the Namada blockchain to start at Epoch 1.

@bengtlofgren bengtlofgren added the bug Something isn't working label Mar 29, 2023
@sug0
Copy link
Collaborator

sug0 commented Apr 13, 2023

not really a bug I'd say, and more trouble than it's worth getting into. a lot of logic relies on the fact epochs start counting from 0. who knows what would break from meddling with that logic

@tzemanovic
Copy link
Member

Not a fan of indexing from 1 but on the other hand it would be more consistent appearance with block height. The thing with the block height is that we have to start from 1 because tendermint treats height 0 as a special value, it doesn't know or care about epochs

@tzemanovic tzemanovic added enhancement New feature or request prio:low and removed bug Something isn't working labels Apr 14, 2023
@juped
Copy link
Member

juped commented Apr 14, 2023

absolutely a protocol bug, some things including masp use nonexistent epoch 0 as a sentinel, genesis versions of per-epoch data that exist before any blocks are produced must go somewhere, etc. same situation as height 0

@tzemanovic tzemanovic added bug Something isn't working and removed enhancement New feature or request prio:low labels Apr 17, 2023
@tzemanovic
Copy link
Member

There is no strong motivation to go with this change. Initializing state at epoch 0 is fine as init_chain doesn't commit anything and the first block simply begins at epoch 0 without any of the epoch increment logic that's applied after epoch 0

@tzemanovic tzemanovic closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Nov 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants