-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 264
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
Spec more Merkle proofs format #366
Comments
➤ Ismail Khoffi commented: Regarding the range proof format for the NMT, here is how I think they should look like: // Proof represents proof of a namespace.ID in an NMT. This is a good description how to construct range proofs: https://gitlab.com/NebulousLabs/merkletree/-/blob/master/range.go#L197-256 Note that to prove absence we need to provide the leafHashes too. |
➤ Mustafa Al-Bassam commented: I assume that Nodes are the subtree roots? |
➤ Ismail Khoffi commented: Yes, exactly. I think the name is appropriate because each subtree root is also a node in the tree, hence proof.Nodes(). proof.SubtreeRoots() would also be good. |
➤ Ismail Khoffi commented: > Note that to prove absence we need to provide the leafHashes too.Don't we always just need a single leaf to prove absence of a namespace? Explanation: celestiaorg/nmt#3 (comment) ( celestiaorg/nmt#3 (comment) ) |
➤ Ismail Khoffi commented: ref: #307 (comment) |
#47 cleaned up a number of issues around Merkle tree specs. Additional proof formats still need to be defined
┆Issue is synchronized with this Asana task by Unito
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: