-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
[ACP-77] Adjust naming of txn types due to renaming of Avalanche Subnets -> Avalanche L1s #154
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[ACP-77] Adjust naming of txn types due to renaming of Avalanche Subnets -> Avalanche L1s #154
Conversation
@@ -564,7 +569,7 @@ The continuous fee mechanism outlined above does not apply to inactive Subnet Va | |||
|
|||
### Should they still be called Subnets? | |||
|
|||
Through this ACP, Subnets have far more sovereignty than they did before. The Avalanche Community could take this opportunity to re-brand Subnets. | |||
Going forward, Subnets should be referred to as L1s. Unlike layer 2 blockchains, layer 1 blockchains operate independently without relying on other systems for their core functions. They manage their own consensus mechanisms, transaction processing, and security protocols directly within their own networks. Subnets have always operated this way. With the added functionality introduced in this ACP, they are clearly standalone networks, or L1s. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it could be worth mentioning the fact that L1 validator sets creating using the new ACP-77 flow will not be a subset of the primary network validator set, making it technically incorrect to call them Subnets.
This is neither here or there, and I see the note in the abstract also, but feel like this explanation belongs more in "motivation" since it is no longer an open question IMO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
my original pr included it as the first part of the motivation, but @dhrubabasu disagrees. I've linked it in line 19 but am open to moving it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🙏 The new transaction names make much more sense to me.
Only top-level comment is a suggestion to put the explanation of the L1 name (and the difference from a Subnet), and then updating all the references to the new L1s.
The technical difference between them removes the ambiguity about which would should be used when, and in my opinion makes it far clearer to comprehend and conform to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are more instances where Subnet
seems to be incorrectly used now. But I don't think there is much value in me marking all of them.
Seems like we should be consistent
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
@dhrubabasu do you agree here? It definitely results in a larger change to the ACP readme in terms of lines changed, but I think it makes it far clearer and less ambiguous which term should be used when going forward. It makes the most sense to update now in this ACP since it is what introduces the new terminology and will be referenced going forward. |
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
I agree. Let's move up the explanation to the Motivation section and put "No open questions." in the Open Questions section. We may want to call out that this rename was done with overwhelming community support in the Motivation section as well I didn't want it moved up in the prior PR because there wasn't a clear delineation between Subnets and L1s in the body of the ACP itself. Like @StephenButtolph pointed out, we should be consistent in the ACP to use |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Haven't done a full pass, but think there are a few places where the term "subnet" is still used in reference to what is actually an L1.
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Stephen Buttolph <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great work going through and editing the ACP to delineate Subnets and L1s! A lot of these comments are more minor but thought it'd be better to be exhaustive so we can merge this in soon and then get #156 in)
I think it should be good to merge after this
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Awaiting approval @dhrubabasu |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
few more nits
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dhruba Basu <[email protected]>
anything else? @dhrubabasu |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM after the last comment is addressed!
Could we rename this PR to "[ACP-77] Update with Layer 1 terminology" or something similar? We're not renaming Subnets to L1s in the latest form of this PR
Address []byte `json:"address"` | ||
// Initial pay-as-you-go validators for the Subnet | ||
Validators []SubnetValidator `json:"validators"` | ||
// Initial set of validators for the L1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this should be modified to say something similar to continuous-fee-paying. We wouldn't be supplanting the existing validator set with the ones defined in this array.
Not married to "continuous-fee-paying," feel free to modify
// Initial set of validators for the L1 | |
// Initial continuous-fee-paying validators for the L1 |
As stated in this Avalanche Academy Guide: Avalanche Subnets have been rebranded as Avalanche L1s.
To avoid confusion, the spec has been revised to account for this, including the following changes:
To Review:
ReadMe Preview