rebase onto D9372

SCORE_DUST_THRESHOLD -> LOWEST_VALID_SCORE

I noticed that I removed a block scope that used to contain only the Proof deserialization. I'm not sure why it was there. Should I restore it?

revert unrelated style changes in the test, use ternary operator in hasLocalProof instead of control flow

Not ready yet

fix index by proofid for PeerSet and ProofPool: we cannot use the same struct

went with simpler

remove unecessary import and else clause (the if ends with a throw)

address review

Why not just check for IBD status in runEventLoop ? What benefit does all this complication achieves?

Some open question, but this is better.

refactor conditional check of ProofValidationResult as suggested in the review

What problem removing the distinction between master key and session key solves? It seems to me like it's making security of the whole thing worse for no good reason.

Checked hash, looks good.

double checked hash, ok

@bot build-ibd

mmove constexprs into the avalanche namespace
rename MIN_SCORE_DUST -> SCORE_DUST_THRESHOLD

The use case does not make sense. You don't want to have a long delegation chain for all the node one after the other anyways, you want to have a master key and delegate to each node. There is no point delegating to begin with if the master also have all the private key to which it is delegating. If you want to do that, you might as well distribute the master key instead of devising a complicated scheme that isn't any more secure.

You want to fix the proof size handling before moving on there, or you'll just multiply the point where this needs fixing.

use ser_string and ser_vector shorthands

Yes -- done

Rebase to include D9362

rename inventory type to MSG_AVA_PROOF and use a temporary inventory code

LGTM, worth a rebase on top of D9362 ?

Rebase, edit the summary to explain the use case.