-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 134
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
docs: add ADR for Partial Set Security #1584
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some first comments. I got to parts that we clearly discussed and decided on differently yesterday, so I'll keep off it and let you revise before I continue.
Clicked approve instead of comment :(
Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great work @insumity. See my comments below.
gaiad query provider optedInValidators $chainId | ||
``` | ||
|
||
#### When do validators opt in? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To implement top-n, we should just have an automatic process every block or epoch or whatever, which automatically opts in validators in the top-n, just as if they had sent the message themselves.
|
||
`top_N` can be up to 95% to capture the current case of Replicated Security where we allow the bottom 5% of validators to opt out. There is no reason for `top_N` to be higher than 95%. Smaller chains that belong in the bottom 5% validators can choose to opt in if they want to validate. | ||
|
||
So, the fields can take the following values: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This might change, not a huge deal. We may want to change how much we limit the number of top n options that are available, but that can be a very surface level thing here in the prop
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Note that in a Top N consumer chain, the top `N%` provider validators have to validate the consumer chain. | ||
Nevertheless, validators in the bottom `(100 - N)%` can opt in to validate as well. | ||
Provider validators that belong to the top `N%` validators are immediately opted in to validate a Top N consumer chain. | ||
This means that if a validator `V` belongs to the top `N%` validators but later falls (e.g., due to undelegations) to the bottom `(100 - N)%`, `V` would still be considered opted in and has to validate unless `V` sends a `MsgOptOut` message (see below). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So you would have to opt out again every time you get in the top N, right?
i.e.
val V is in top N
falls below top N
opts out
gets back in top N
falls below again
has to opt out again
not really a problem, because this is already annoying and validators that skirt in and out of top N probably also don't really want to turn on/off their nodes all the time, so they'd probably just stay opted in until they are for sure not in the top N anymore, but maybe something to remember to communicate properly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc-ing @jtremback in regards to the later communication part
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great work @insumity. Just some nits.
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Marius Poke <[email protected]>
Description
Closes: #1571
Add ADR for Partial Set Security.
Author Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.
I have...
docs:
prefix in the PR titleReviewers Checklist
All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.
I have...
docs:
prefix in the PR titlemake build-docs
)