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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Why not ?
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.
We can do it.. the problem I see is only compatibility to JSON spec serialization. Will we change it to "witness" too? As long as we do it, it's fine for me. It's like having an inheritance that removed virtualization from Witnesses and exposed Witness. No logical problem I guess.
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 agree @shargon, no need to waste this byte for nothing. Lets update json spec too, to make it compatible.
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.
No. We need to keep it as an array. So we can allow multiple witnesses in the future.
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.
Is not better to increase the version if we want to modify this in the future?
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.
That sounds good. Otherwise, why have a version 🤷♂
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.
Do you think there's hope for still using that array in blocks @erikzhang? I thought about it, and perhaps, there's no more applications for multi witness here on Neo3.... please correct me if I'm mistaken. I know you always has some clever tricks at hand.. cross chain maybe?
We don't mean removing from IVerifiable, only in BlockBase.
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.
Yes. If we support grouped consensus. And I think that even if we don't need multiple
Witness
in the future, we should serialize it according to the definition of theIVerifiable.Witnesses
interface.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.
Perfect. I fully agree with both justifications Erik.