12 Matching Annotations
- Jun 2019
-
docs.plasma.group docs.plasma.group
-
(address: string): Promise<void>
Incorrect signature
-
setKeystore
Typo
-
- May 2019
-
docs.plasma.group docs.plasma.group
-
Proof Structure
How do we actually verify the given transaction?
-
The resulting update MUST have a block number equal to element.block.
Rephrase into client MUST check, throw error.
-
After executing the transactions against all updates, the client MUST verify that the resulting state updates are all equivalent.
Maybe worth explaining why this is necessary.
-
Next, the client MUST find all previously verified state updates that intersect with the range on the transations and where update.verifiedBlockNumber is equal to element.block - 1.
Maybe tie this back into non-inclusion proof elements.
-
The provided transactions are used to compute the newer state update
Explain client computes.. etc
-
This process effectively finds any state updates covered by the implicit range and “bumps up” the block to which they’re considered valid
Expand on this
-
This process will leave the client with a set of state updates that are entirely covered by the implicit range and ones that no longer intersect.
Fix grammar
-
We’re only interested in these state updates because the implicit proof only applies to the element.block but not any previous blocks.
Explain this better
-
The client SHOULD check their local database for the deposit before querying Ethereum.
Expand on this.
-
Otherwise, a client may not have the necessary information to verify a specific state transition.
Expand on this, give an example.
-