Enforce 32 data + 32 coding shreds
- Idea
- Draft
- Review
- Accept
- Implement
- 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.
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 unknownValidators & operators Impact unknown
No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.
Action requirement unknownUsers & stakers Impact unknown
No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.
Action requirement unknownGovernance & ecosystem Impact unknown
No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.
Action requirement unknownExact source revision
Full proposal document
0616093b2952Summary
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, 2026Would 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 ↗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 ↗thanks a lot, I've included all 3 comments
GitHub ↗done!
GitHub ↗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 ↗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 ↗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 ↗@jacobcreech could we merge this? 🙏
GitHub ↗Provenance
Evidence & technical details
Rollout or chain data, source revisions, freshness and integrity. 2
Provenance
Evidence & technical details
Rollout or chain data, source revisions, freshness and integrity.SIMD
Deployment Status
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.
simd.watch community discussion · SIMD-0317
Powered by Giscus · Sign in with GitHub to comment
Community comments load when this section approaches the viewport.