From 71722716824c4b97ee391d7be153e054435abab0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jcstein <46639943+jcstein@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:28:32 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] docs: edits --- cips/cip-pfb-limits.md | 20 ++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/cips/cip-pfb-limits.md b/cips/cip-pfb-limits.md index 1df98f1..6c47984 100644 --- a/cips/cip-pfb-limits.md +++ b/cips/cip-pfb-limits.md @@ -11,25 +11,33 @@ ## Abstract -This CIP proposes to set limits for the number of PayForBlobs (PFBs) messages and non-PFBs messages per block. The proposal is to set the limits to 600 PFBs messages and 200 non-PFBs messages per block. +This CIP proposes to set limits for the number of PayForBlobs (PFBs) messages and non-PFBs messages per block. The proposal is to set the limits to 600 PFBs messages and 200 non-PFBs messages per block. Setting PFB and non-PFBs limits is not consensus-breaking. ## Specification -1. The number of PFBs per block is limited to 600 by setting `MaxPFBMessages` to 600. -2. The number of non-PFBs messages per block is limited to 200 by setting `MaxNonPFBMessages` to 200. -3. These limits are soft limits implemented in the `PrepareProposal` stage. +1. Set `MaxPFBMessages` to 600, limiting the number of PFBs per block to 600. +2. Set `MaxNonPFBMessages` to 200, limiting the number of non-PFBs messages per block to 200. +3. These limits are implemented as soft limits in the `PrepareProposal` stage of the `celestia-app`. +4. Validators can potentially modify the `PrepareProposal` logic and produce blocks exceeding these limits. ## Rationale -To prevent long block times on the network by limiting the number of PFBs and non-PFBs messages per block. Limits were established based on benchmarks to achieve a target processing time of ~0.25 seconds. +1. To prevent long block times by limiting PFBs and non-PFBs messages per block. +2. Limits were established based on benchmarks in [PR 3904](https://github.com/celestiaorg/celestia-app/pull/3904): + - Target processing time: ~0.25 seconds + - Benchmarks run on recommended validator configuration (4 CPU, 16GB RAM) + - Soft limiter implemented in prepare proposal stage +3. This approach balances network efficiency with block processing speed. +4. While initially not considered consensus-breaking, it has a meaningful effect on users and should be formalized. ## Backwards Compatibility -This proposal is meant to be included with v3 and the Ginger Network Upgrade. It is backwards compatible with v2. +This proposal is meant to be included with v3 and the [Ginger Network Upgrade](./cip-25.md). It is backwards compatible with v2. ## Security Considerations This proposal does not introduce new security risks but impacts network behavior and user experience. ## Copyright + Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://github.com/celestiaorg/CIPs/blob/main/LICENSE).