Implement LQT Voting action, and stateless checks #5027
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This re-uses the strategy of the undelegate claim proofs, which wrap an inner proof. This has the advantage of simplifying the proving interface a bit, at the expense of some one time boilerplate.
cronokirby
added
the
consensus-breaking
erwanor
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
crates/core/component/funding/src/liquidity_tournament/action/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
TalDerei
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2025
…mod.rs Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]>
cronokirby
force-pushed
the
cronokirby/lqt_actions
branch
from
cd1edf6 to
a8d55dc
Compare
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2025
## Describe your changes Closes #5014. This implements the action for LQT voting, up to (and including) stateless checks. This is similar to delegator voting, but with some light simplification. This also reuses the strategy of UndelegateClaim in using an inner proof shared with a different circuit, which is, imo, cleaner code since the fact that the delegator vote circuit can be reused is a happy coincidence. Testing deferred. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > you betcha --------- Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
## Describe your changes Closes #5014. This implements the action for LQT voting, up to (and including) stateless checks. This is similar to delegator voting, but with some light simplification. This also reuses the strategy of UndelegateClaim in using an inner proof shared with a different circuit, which is, imo, cleaner code since the fact that the delegator vote circuit can be reused is a happy coincidence. Testing deferred. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > you betcha --------- Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
## Describe your changes Closes #5014. This implements the action for LQT voting, up to (and including) stateless checks. This is similar to delegator voting, but with some light simplification. This also reuses the strategy of UndelegateClaim in using an inner proof shared with a different circuit, which is, imo, cleaner code since the fact that the delegator vote circuit can be reused is a happy coincidence. Testing deferred. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > you betcha --------- Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
## Describe your changes Closes #5014. This implements the action for LQT voting, up to (and including) stateless checks. This is similar to delegator voting, but with some light simplification. This also reuses the strategy of UndelegateClaim in using an inner proof shared with a different circuit, which is, imo, cleaner code since the fact that the delegator vote circuit can be reused is a happy coincidence. Testing deferred. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > you betcha --------- Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
## Describe your changes Closes #5014. This implements the action for LQT voting, up to (and including) stateless checks. This is similar to delegator voting, but with some light simplification. This also reuses the strategy of UndelegateClaim in using an inner proof shared with a different circuit, which is, imo, cleaner code since the fact that the delegator vote circuit can be reused is a happy coincidence. Testing deferred. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > you betcha --------- Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
Closes #5014. This implements the action for LQT voting, up to (and including) stateless checks. This is similar to delegator voting, but with some light simplification. This also reuses the strategy of UndelegateClaim in using an inner proof shared with a different circuit, which is, imo, cleaner code since the fact that the delegator vote circuit can be reused is a happy coincidence. Testing deferred. - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > you betcha --------- Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erwan Or <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
Closes #5014.
This implements the action for LQT voting, up to (and including) stateless checks. This is similar to delegator voting, but with some light simplification. This also reuses the strategy of UndelegateClaim in using an inner proof shared with a different circuit, which is, imo, cleaner code since the fact that the delegator vote circuit can be reused is a happy coincidence.
Testing deferred.
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: