document optimistic confirmation and slashing roadmap (#10164)
* docs * book nits * Update docs/src/proposals/optimistic-confirmation-and-slashing.md Co-authored-by: Michael Vines <mvines@gmail.com> * Update optimistic-confirmation-and-slashing.md * Update optimistic-confirmation-and-slashing.md * Update optimistic-confirmation-and-slashing.md * Update optimistic-confirmation-and-slashing.md * Update optimistic-confirmation-and-slashing.md * fixups Co-authored-by: Michael Vines <mvines@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
12a3b1ba6a
commit
c78fd2b36d
|
@ -96,6 +96,7 @@
|
|||
* [Commitment](implemented-proposals/commitment.md)
|
||||
* [Snapshot Verification](implemented-proposals/snapshot-verification.md)
|
||||
* [Accepted Design Proposals](proposals/README.md)
|
||||
* [Optimistic Confirmation and Slashing](proposals/optimistic-confirmation-and-slashing.md)
|
||||
* [Secure Vote Signing](proposals/vote-signing-to-implement.md)
|
||||
* [Cluster Test Framework](proposals/cluster-test-framework.md)
|
||||
* [Validator](proposals/validator-proposal.md)
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
|
|||
# Optimistic Confirmation and Slashing
|
||||
|
||||
Progress on optimistic confirmation can be tracked here
|
||||
|
||||
https://github.com/solana-labs/solana/projects/52
|
||||
|
||||
At the end of May, the mainnet-beta is moving to 1.1, and testnet
|
||||
is moving to 1.2. With 1.2, testnet will behave as if we have 1-block
|
||||
conf as long as no more than 4.66% of the validators are acting
|
||||
maliciously. Applications can assume that 2/3+ votes observed in
|
||||
gossip confirm a block or that at least 4.66% of the network is
|
||||
violating the protocol.
|
||||
|
||||
## How does it work?
|
||||
|
||||
The general idea is that validators have to continue voting, following
|
||||
their last fork, unless they can construct a proof that their fork
|
||||
may not reach finality. The way validators construct this proof is
|
||||
by collecting votes for all the other forks, excluding their own.
|
||||
If the set of valid votes represents over 1/3+X of the epoch stake
|
||||
weight, there is may not be a way for the validators current fork
|
||||
to reach 2/3+ finality. The validator hashes the proof (creates a
|
||||
witness) and submits it with their vote for the alternative fork.
|
||||
But if 2/3+ votes for the same block, it is impossible for any of
|
||||
the nodes to construct this proof, and therefore no node is able
|
||||
to switch forks and this block will be eventually finalized.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Tradeoffs
|
||||
|
||||
The safety margin is 1/3+X, where X represents the minimum amount
|
||||
of stake that will be slashed in case the protocol is violated. The
|
||||
tradeoff is that liveness is now reduced by 2X in the worst case.
|
||||
If more than 1/3 - 2X of the network is unavailable, the network
|
||||
may stall and will resume finalizing blocks after the network
|
||||
recovers. So far, we haven’t observed a large unavailability hit
|
||||
on our mainnet, cosmos, or tezos. For our network, which is primarily
|
||||
composed of high availability systems, this seems unlikely. Currently,
|
||||
we have set the threshold percentage to 4.66%, which means that if
|
||||
23.68% have failed the network may stop finalizing blocks. For our
|
||||
network, which is primarily composed of high availability systems
|
||||
a 23.68% drop in availabilty seems unlinkely. 1:10^12 odds assuming
|
||||
five 4.7% staked nodes with 0.995 of uptime.
|
||||
|
||||
## Security
|
||||
|
||||
Long term average votes per slot has been 670,000,000 votes /
|
||||
12,000,000 slots, or 55 out of 64 voting validators. This includes
|
||||
missed blocks due to block producer failures. When a client sees
|
||||
55/64, or ~86% confirming a block, it can expect that ~24% or (86
|
||||
- 66.666.. + 4.666..)% of the network must be slashed for this
|
||||
block to fail full finalization.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why Solana?
|
||||
|
||||
This approach can be built on other networks, but the implementation
|
||||
complexity is significantly reduced on Solana because our votes
|
||||
have provable VDF-based timeouts. It’s not clear if switching proofs
|
||||
can be easily constructed in networks with weak assumptions about
|
||||
time.
|
||||
|
||||
## Slashing roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
Slashing is a hard problem, and it becomes harder when the goal of
|
||||
the network is to be the fastest possible implementation. The
|
||||
tradeoffs are especially apparent when optimizing for latency. For
|
||||
example, we would really like the validators to cast and propagate
|
||||
their votes before the memory has been synced to disk, which means
|
||||
that the risk of local state corruption is much higher.
|
||||
|
||||
Fundamentally, our goal for slashing is to slash 100% in cases where
|
||||
the node is maliciously trying to violate safety rules and 0% during
|
||||
routine operation. How we aim to achieve that is to first implement
|
||||
slashing proofs without any automatic slashing whatsoever.
|
||||
|
||||
Right now, for regular consensus, after a safety violation, the
|
||||
network will halt. We can analyze the data and figure out who was
|
||||
responsible and propose that the stake should be slashed after
|
||||
restart. A similar approach will be used with a optimistic conf.
|
||||
An optimistic conf safety violation is easily observable, but under
|
||||
normal circumstances, an optimistic confirmation safety violation
|
||||
may not halt the network. Once the violation has been observed, the
|
||||
validators will freeze the affected stake in the next epoch and
|
||||
will decide on the next upgrade if the violation requires slashing.
|
||||
|
||||
In the long term, transactions should be able to recover a portion
|
||||
of the slashing collateral if the optimistic safety violation is
|
||||
proven. In that scenario, each block is effectively insured by the
|
||||
network.
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue