Skip to main content
Technical proposal SIMD-0317 Review

Enforce 32 data + 32 coding shreds

  1. Idea
  2. Draft
  3. Review
  4. Accept
  5. Implement
  6. Active

Decision brief

Why this proposal matters

All clients currently send 32 data + 32 coding shreds, however Turbine still allows to send and receive a variable number of shreds. With this change we will enforce sending and receiving only 32 data + 32 coding shreds.

Source-backed reading aid · source language: EN

Proposal at a glance

What changes

  • As a result, the FEC set payload must be exactly equal to 31840 bytes (with 995 bytes of payload per data shred).
  • All clients currently send 32 data + 32 coding shreds, however Turbine still allows to send and receive a variable number of shreds. With this change we will enforce sending and receiving only 32 data + 32 coding shreds.

Stakeholder map

Who is affected

Builders & client teams Medium impact

Clients will no longer accept FEC sets (thus blocks) with any number of shreds different than 32 data + 32 coding.

Action requirement unknown
Validators & operators Impact unknown

No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.

Action requirement unknown
Users & stakers Impact unknown

No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.

Action requirement unknown
Governance & ecosystem Impact unknown

No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.

Action requirement unknown

Exact source revision

Full proposal document

Source-language document. Technical identifiers and evidence remain unchanged. 0616093b2952

Summary

All clients currently send 32 data + 32 coding shreds, however Turbine still allows to send and receive a variable number of shreds. With this change we will enforce sending and receiving only 32 data + 32 coding shreds.

Motivation

It is inconvinient to support many combinations of data + coding shreds. Even the logic to validate if a shred index is valid or not is complex because it requires to receive a coding shred for the FEC set to know the index boundaries. With fixed 32 data + 32 coding shreds this logic becomes trivial.

There's no security benefit in variable number of data + coding shreds, and in fact security is reduced when the number of shreds is low.

With fixed 32 data + 32 coding shreds, equivocation detection is simplified because it's sufficient to receive any two shreds in the same FEC set with different Merkle roots and valid signatures.

New Terminology

N/A

Detailed Design

A sender should always produce 32 data shreds + 32 coding shreds per FEC set (this is currently already happening).

Receivers currently accept FEC sets with variable number of shreds.

If enforce_32_data_shreds: <PUBKEY> is active, then any FEC set with a number of shreds different than 32 data + 32 coding will be dropped on ingest.

As a result, the FEC set payload must be exactly equal to 31840 bytes (with 995 bytes of payload per data shred).

Alternatives Considered

Leave as is.

Impact

Clients will no longer accept FEC sets (thus blocks) with any number of shreds different than 32 data + 32 coding.

Security Considerations

Security is improved since the (minimum) number of shreds is now 32 + 32, validating shred indexes is trivial and equivocation detection is simplified.

Backwards Compatibility

This feature is not backwards compatible.

Evidence graph

Related proposals and rollout

One or more sources are unavailable.

Upstream review record

Upstream discussion & review

GitHub review is editorial context, not evidence of on-chain support, voting, or outcome.

PR #317 · merged SIMD-0317: Enforce 32 data + 32 coding shreds 13 comments and reviews · Jan 12, 2026
@alexpyattaev

Would it be appropriate to provision some mechanism to evolve the protocol to support larger FEC set size later, or do we expect to redesign shred format by then?

GitHub ↗
@0x0ece

Would it be appropriate to provision some mechanism to evolve the protocol to support larger FEC set size later, or do we expect to redesign shred format by then? In another SIMD maybe?

GitHub ↗
@0x0ece

thanks a lot, I've included all 3 comments

GitHub ↗
@bw-solana

I think I'm good with the proposal and direction. The only question I have is around implementation and what happens for a malformed block. Do we do anything to actively prevent repair from trying to get the missing shreds?

GitHub ↗
@alexpyattaev

The only question I have is around implementation and what happens for a malformed block. Do we do anything to actively prevent repair from trying to get the missing shreds? This would have to be a feature gate = everyone stops admitting oversized FEC sets at once = no problem with repair (since invalid shreds would be dropped by everybody for new blocks). Repair should be able to work with any shred configs for a while after transition.

GitHub ↗
@0x0ece

The way I'd do it is that if feat gate gets activated at epoch E, slot N, any shred with slot = N must be 32+32 (or it gets dropped). Any shred with slot < N can be as it is today (turbine, repair, anything...). Starting from epoch E+1 we can remove all old code. Like if this was a parsing rule for the shred.

GitHub ↗
@topointon-jump

@jacobcreech could we merge this? 🙏

GitHub ↗

simd.watch community discussion · SIMD-0317

Powered by Giscus · Sign in with GitHub to comment

Community comments load when this section approaches the viewport.

Provenance

Evidence & technical details

Rollout or chain data, source revisions, freshness and integrity.
2

SIMD

Deployment Status

Document lifecycleReview
CategoryCore protocol

Feature Gate not yet created

Exact source revision

Sources & integrity

  • Proposal document pinned_commit_blob
    0616093b2952ed6de52c4a27d66aadd11d48d4f9
  • simd-document document · stale · Sep 10, 2026
    0616093b2952ed6de52c4a27d66aadd11d48d4f9

One or more sources are unavailable.