## Proposed Changes
Update the Gnosis chain bootnodes. The current list of Gnosis bootnodes were abandoned at some point before the Gnosis merge and are now failing to bootstrap peers. There's a workaround list of bootnodes here: https://docs.gnosischain.com/updates/20221208-temporary-bootnodes
The list from this PR represents the long-term bootnodes run by the Gnosis team. We will also try to set up SigP bootnodes for Gnosis chain at some point.
## Issue Addressed
Updates discv5
Pending on
- [x] #3547
- [x] Alex upgrades his deps
## Proposed Changes
updates discv5 and the enr crate. The only relevant change would be some clear indications of ipv4 usage in lighthouse
## Additional Info
Functionally, this should be equivalent to the prev version.
As draft pending a discv5 release
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Update bootnodes for Prater. There are new IP addresses for the Sigma Prime nodes. Teku and Nimbus nodes were also added.
## Additional Info
Related: 24760cd4b4
## Issue Addressed
- Resolves#3338
## Proposed Changes
This PR adds a new `--network goerli` flag that reuses the [Prater network configs](https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/tree/stable/common/eth2_network_config/built_in_network_configs/prater).
As you'll see in #3338, there are several approaches to the problem of the Goerli/Prater alias. This approach achieves:
1. No duplication of the genesis state between Goerli and Prater.
- Upside: the genesis state for Prater is ~17mb, duplication would increase the size of the binary by that much.
2. When the user supplies `--network goerli`, they will get a datadir in `~/.lighthouse/goerli`.
- Upside: our docs stay correct when they declare a datadir is located at `~/.lighthouse/{network}`
- Downside: switching from `--network prater` to `--network goerli` will require some manual migration.
3. When using `--network goerli`, the [`config/spec`](https://ethereum.github.io/beacon-APIs/#/Config/getSpec) endpoint will return a [`CONFIG_NAME`](02a2b71d64/configs/mainnet.yaml (L11)) of "prater".
- Upside: VC running `--network prater` will still think it's on the same network as one using `--network goerli`.
- Downside: potentially confusing.
#3348 achieves the same goal as this PR with a different approach and set of trade-offs.
## Additional Info
### Notes for reviewers:
In e4896c2682 you'll see that I remove the `$name_str` by just using `stringify!($name_ident)` instead. This is a simplification that should have have been there in the first place.
Then, in 90b5e22fca I reclaim that second parameter with a new purpose; to specify the directory from which to load configs.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Adds the configuration for the upcoming merge of the Ropsten network, as per:
https://github.com/eth-clients/merge-testnets/pull/9
Use the Ropsten network with: `lighthouse --network ropsten`
## Additional Info
This is still a work-in-progress. We should wait for the eth-clients/merge-testnets PR to be approved before merging this into our `unstable`.
## Proposed Changes
Mitigate the fork choice attacks described in [_Three Attacks on Proof-of-Stake Ethereum_](https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10086) by enabling proposer boost @ 70% on mainnet.
Proposer boost has been running with stability on Prater for a few months now, and is safe to roll out gradually on mainnet. I'll argue that the financial impact of rolling out gradually is also minimal.
Consider how a proposer-boosted validator handles two types of re-orgs:
## Ex ante re-org (from the paper)
In the mitigated attack, a malicious proposer releases their block at slot `n + 1` late so that it re-orgs the block at the slot _after_ them (at slot `n + 2`). Non-boosting validators will follow this re-org and vote for block `n + 1` in slot `n + 2`. Boosted validators will vote for `n + 2`. If the boosting validators are outnumbered, there'll be a re-org to the malicious block from `n + 1` and validators applying the boost will have their slot `n + 2` attestations miss head (and target on an epoch boundary). Note that all the attesters from slot `n + 1` are doomed to lose their head vote rewards, but this is the same regardless of boosting.
Therefore, Lighthouse nodes stand to miss slightly more head votes than other nodes if they are in the minority while applying the proposer boost. Once the proposer boost nodes gain a majority, this trend reverses.
## Ex post re-org (using the boost)
The other type of re-org is an ex post re-org using the strategy described here: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/2860. With this strategy, boosted nodes will follow the attempted re-org and again lose a head vote if the re-org is unsuccessful. Once boosting is widely adopted, the re-orgs will succeed and the non-boosting validators will lose out.
I don't think there are (m)any validators applying this strategy, because it is irrational to attempt it before boosting is widely adopted. Therefore I think we can safely ignore this possibility.
## Risk Assessment
From observing re-orgs on mainnet I don't think ex ante re-orgs are very common. I've observed around 1 per day for the last month on my node (see: https://gist.github.com/michaelsproul/3b2142fa8fe0ff767c16553f96959e8c), compared to 2.5 ex post re-orgs per day.
Given one extra slot per day where attesting will cause a missed head vote, each individual validator has a 1/32 chance of being assigned to that slot. So we have an increase of 1/32 missed head votes per validator per day in expectation. Given that we currently see ~7 head vote misses per validator per day due to late/missing blocks (and re-orgs), this represents only a (1/32)/7 = 0.45% increase in missed head votes in expectation. I believe this is so small that we shouldn't worry about it. Particularly as getting proposer boost deployed is good for network health and may enable us to drive down the number of late blocks over time (which will decrease head vote misses).
## TL;DR
Enable proposer boost now and release ASAP, as financial downside is a 0.45% increase in missed head votes until widespread adoption.
## Issue Addressed
Which issue # does this PR address?
## Proposed Changes
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
## Additional Info
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: Pawan Dhananjay <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <sean@sigmaprime.io>
## Proposed Changes
Lots of lint updates related to `flat_map`, `unwrap_or_else` and string patterns. I did a little more creative refactoring in the op pool, but otherwise followed Clippy's suggestions.
## Additional Info
We need this PR to unblock CI.
## Issue Addressed
Closes#3014
## Proposed Changes
- Rename `receipt_root` to `receipts_root`
- Rename `execute_payload` to `notify_new_payload`
- This is slightly weird since we modify everything except the actual HTTP call to the engine API. That change is expected to be implemented in #2985 (cc @ethDreamer)
- Enable "random" tests for Bellatrix.
## Notes
This will break *partially* compatibility with Kintusgi testnets in order to gain compatibility with [Kiln](https://hackmd.io/@n0ble/kiln-spec) testnets. I think it will only break the BN APIs due to the `receipts_root` change, however it might have some other effects too.
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
N/A
## Proposed Changes
Removes all configurations and hard-coded rules related to the deprecated Pyrmont testnet.
## Additional Info
Pyrmont is deprecated/will be shut down after being used for scenario testing, this PR removes configurations related to it.
Co-authored-by: Zachinquarantine <zachinquarantine@yahoo.com>
## Proposed Changes
Add a new hardcoded spec for the Gnosis Beacon Chain.
Ideally, official Lighthouse executables will be able to connect to the gnosis beacon chain from now on, using `--network gnosis` CLI option.
## Proposed Changes
Change the canonical fork name for the merge to Bellatrix. Keep other merge naming the same to avoid churn.
I've also fixed and enabled the `fork` and `transition` tests for Bellatrix, and the v1.1.7 fork choice tests.
Additionally, the `BellatrixPreset` has been added with tests. It gets served via the `/config/spec` API endpoint along with the other presets.
## Issue Addressed
Resolves: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/2741
Includes: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/2853 so that we can get ssz static tests passing here on v1.1.6. If we want to merge that first, we can make this diff slightly smaller
## Proposed Changes
- Changes the `justified_epoch` and `finalized_epoch` in the `ProtoArrayNode` each to an `Option<Checkpoint>`. The `Option` is necessary only for the migration, so not ideal. But does allow us to add a default logic to `None` on these fields during the database migration.
- Adds a database migration from a legacy fork choice struct to the new one, search for all necessary block roots in fork choice by iterating through blocks in the db.
- updates related to https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2727
- We will have to update the persisted forkchoice to make sure the justified checkpoint stored is correct according to the updated fork choice logic. This boils down to setting the forkchoice store's justified checkpoint to the justified checkpoint of the block that advanced the finalized checkpoint to the current one.
- AFAICT there's no migration steps necessary for the update to allow applying attestations from prior blocks, but would appreciate confirmation on that
- I updated the consensus spec tests to v1.1.6 here, but they will fail until we also implement the proposer score boost updates. I confirmed that the previously failing scenario `new_finalized_slot_is_justified_checkpoint_ancestor` will now pass after the boost updates, but haven't confirmed _all_ tests will pass because I just quickly stubbed out the proposer boost test scenario formatting.
- This PR now also includes proposer boosting https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2730
## Additional Info
I realized checking justified and finalized roots in fork choice makes it more likely that we trigger this bug: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2727
It's possible the combination of justified checkpoint and finalized checkpoint in the forkchoice store is different from in any block in fork choice. So when trying to startup our store's justified checkpoint seems invalid to the rest of fork choice (but it should be valid). When this happens we get an `InvalidBestNode` error and fail to start up. So I'm including that bugfix in this branch.
Todo:
- [x] Fix fork choice tests
- [x] Self review
- [x] Add fix for https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2727
- [x] Rebase onto Kintusgi
- [x] Fix `num_active_validators` calculation as @michaelsproul pointed out
- [x] Clean up db migrations
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
When compiling with Rust 1.56.0 the compiler generates 3 instances of this warning:
```
warning: trailing semicolon in macro used in expression position
--> common/eth2_network_config/src/lib.rs:181:24
|
181 | })?;
| ^
...
195 | let deposit_contract_deploy_block = load_from_file!(DEPLOY_BLOCK_FILE);
| ---------------------------------- in this macro invocation
|
= note: `#[warn(semicolon_in_expressions_from_macros)]` on by default
= warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
= note: for more information, see issue #79813 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79813>
= note: this warning originates in the macro `load_from_file` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
This warning is completely harmless, but will be visible to users compiling Lighthouse v2.0.1 (or earlier) with Rust 1.56.0 (to be released October 21st). It is **completely safe** to ignore this warning, it's just a superficial change to Rust's syntax.
## Proposed Changes
This PR removes the semi-colon as recommended, and fixes the new Clippy lints from 1.56.0
