Note: This extends #107 directly which should be merged before this is reviewed/merged.
As I went to fix #93, I realized the "Minimal Consensus Changes" argument is weakened since Crosslink does not use PoW or PoS "off the shelf" and both need to be modified.[^1]
Furthermore, I realized the main benefit is modularity, rather than minimal changes, so I bolstered that section a bit and cross-referenced the "Design in a Nutshell" section which introduces the three major subprotocol components.
This fixes #93.
[^1]: The modification scope of subprotocols is restricted their objective validity rules, not fork choice, so there are still some constraints to those modification, and it would be good to document that. I'll add a separate ticket for this: #109
Note: This extends #107 directly which should be merged before this is reviewed/merged.
As I went to fix #93, I realized the "Minimal Consensus Changes" argument is weakened since Crosslink does not use PoW or PoS "off the shelf" and both need to be modified.[^1]
Furthermore, I realized the main benefit is modularity, rather than minimal changes, so I bolstered that section a bit and cross-referenced the "Design in a Nutshell" section which introduces the three major subprotocol components.
This fixes #93.
[^1]: The modification scope of subprotocols is restricted their objective validity rules, not fork choice, so there are still some constraints to those modification, and it would be good to document that. I'll add a separate ticket for this: #109