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

"Start appeal" function #63

Closed
0xjona opened this issue Jul 12, 2022 · 6 comments
Closed

"Start appeal" function #63

0xjona opened this issue Jul 12, 2022 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator

0xjona commented Jul 12, 2022

Defines a new "origin time stamp" and a possible queuing mechanism

@0xjona 0xjona moved this to 📫 in retriev.org Jul 12, 2022
@0xjona 0xjona moved this from 📫 to ToDo in retriev.org Jul 12, 2022
@0xjona
Copy link
Collaborator Author

0xjona commented Jul 12, 2022

This a change in when the “round_timestamp” start!
Now it starts when the client creates an “appeal”, but in case referees and leaders are somehow busy we don’t want to punish the provider that might have the file retrievable but not “checked” by the referees network.

The proposal is that the round is processed since the first leader has started the process.

We need a bit more of further discussion @turinglabsorg @nicola

@turinglabsorg
Copy link
Collaborator

@0xjona one second, i already added the change here: 30595d0

I added a new field in the struct which is called request_timestamp, this field is not the original one, which was origin_timestamp.

Any of the referees can start the appeal using the startAppeal function, when this function is called the origin_timestamp is set and the rounds starts.

There's no round_timestamp inside the protocol, from where it came?

@turinglabsorg turinglabsorg moved this from ToDo to Implementation in retriev.org Jul 14, 2022
@turinglabsorg
Copy link
Collaborator

turinglabsorg commented Jul 14, 2022

Ok, the implementation was done and network upgraded! 🥳

@cryptonetlab cryptonetlab deleted a comment from 0xjona Jul 15, 2022
@irenegia
Copy link
Collaborator

@turinglabsorg should I procede to update the hackMD then?

@turinglabsorg
Copy link
Collaborator

yes @irenegia, let me know if you need something from me, we'll close the issue after hackmd is updated

@turinglabsorg turinglabsorg moved this from Implementation to Validation in retriev.org Jul 15, 2022
@irenegia
Copy link
Collaborator

hackMD updated, closing this issue!

@turinglabsorg turinglabsorg moved this from Validation to Done in retriev.org Jul 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants