* add a rt is_blob_batch
* use the mixed type everywhere
* glue
* more glue
* minor fixes
* fix range tests
* filling in the gaps
* moore filling in the gaps
## Issue Addressed
New lints for rust 1.65
## Proposed Changes
Notable change is the identification or parameters that are only used in recursion
## Additional Info
na
## Summary
The deposit cache now has the ability to finalize deposits. This will cause it to drop unneeded deposit logs and hashes in the deposit Merkle tree that are no longer required to construct deposit proofs. The cache is finalized whenever the latest finalized checkpoint has a new `Eth1Data` with all deposits imported.
This has three benefits:
1. Improves the speed of constructing Merkle proofs for deposits as we can just replay deposits since the last finalized checkpoint instead of all historical deposits when re-constructing the Merkle tree.
2. Significantly faster weak subjectivity sync as the deposit cache can be transferred to the newly syncing node in compressed form. The Merkle tree that stores `N` finalized deposits requires a maximum of `log2(N)` hashes. The newly syncing node then only needs to download deposits since the last finalized checkpoint to have a full tree.
3. Future proofing in preparation for [EIP-4444](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4444) as execution nodes will no longer be required to store logs permanently so we won't always have all historical logs available to us.
## More Details
Image to illustrate how the deposit contract merkle tree evolves and finalizes along with the resulting `DepositTreeSnapshot`
## Other Considerations
I've changed the structure of the `SszDepositCache` so once you load & save your database from this version of lighthouse, you will no longer be able to load it from older versions.
Co-authored-by: ethDreamer <37123614+ethDreamer@users.noreply.github.com>
## 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
There are few spelling and grammar errors in the book.
## Proposed Changes
Corrected those spelling and grammar errors in the below files
- book/src/advanced-release-candidates.md
- book/src/advanced_networking.md
- book/src/builders.md
- book/src/key-management.md
- book/src/merge-migration.md
- book/src/wallet-create.md
Co-authored-by: Kausik Das <kausik007007@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Kausik Das ✪ <kausik007007@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
This PR partially addresses #3651
## Proposed Changes
This PR adds the following containers types from [the lightclient specs](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/dev/specs/altair/light-client/sync-protocol.md): `LightClientUpdate`, `LightClientFinalityUpdate`, `LightClientOptimisticUpdate` and `LightClientBootstrap`. It also implements the creation of each updates as delined by this [document](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/dev/specs/altair/light-client/full-node.md).
## Additional Info
Here is a brief description of what each of these container signify:
`LightClientUpdate`: This container is only provided by server (full node) to lightclients when catching up new sync committees beetwen periods and we want possibly one lightclient update ready for each post-altair period the lighthouse node go over. it is needed in the resp/req in method `light_client_update_by_range`.
`LightClientFinalityUpdate/LightClientFinalityUpdate`: Lighthouse will need only the latest of each of this kind of updates, so no need to store them in the database, we can just store the latest one of each one in memory and then just supply them via gossip or respreq, only the latest ones are served by a full node. finality updates marks the transition to a new finalized header, while optimistic updates signify new non-finalized header which are imported optimistically.
`LightClientBootstrap`: This object is retrieved by lightclients during the bootstrap process after a finalized checkpoint is retrieved, ideally we want to store a LightClientBootstrap for each finalized root and then serve each of them by finalized root in respreq protocol id `light_client_bootstrap`.
Little digression to how we implement the creation of each updates: the creation of a optimistic/finality update is just a version of the lightclient_update creation mechanism with less fields being set, there is underlying concept of inheritance, if you look at the specs it becomes very obvious that a lightclient update is just an extension of a finality update and a finality update an extension to an optimistic update.
## Extra note
`LightClientStore` is not implemented as it is only useful as internal storage design for the lightclient side.
* add capella gossip boiler plate
* get everything compiling
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <sean@sigmaprime.io
Co-authored-by: Mark Mackey <mark@sigmaprime.io>
* small cleanup
* small cleanup
* cargo fix + some test cleanup
* improve block production
* add fixme for potential panic
Co-authored-by: Mark Mackey <mark@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
This reverts commit ca9dc8e094 (PR #3559) with some modifications.
## Proposed Changes
Unfortunately that PR introduced a performance regression in fork choice. The optimisation _intended_ to build the exit and pubkey caches on the head state _only if_ they were not already built. However, due to the head state always being cloned without these caches, we ended up building them every time the head changed, leading to a ~70ms+ penalty on mainnet.
fcfd02aeec/beacon_node/beacon_chain/src/canonical_head.rs (L633-L636)
I believe this is a severe enough regression to justify immediately releasing v3.2.1 with this change.
## Additional Info
I didn't fully revert #3559, because there were some unrelated deletions of dead code in that PR which I figured we may as well keep.
An alternative would be to clone the extra caches, but this likely still imposes some cost, so in the interest of applying a conservative fix quickly, I think reversion is the best approach. The optimisation from #3559 was not even optimising a particularly significant path, it was mostly for VCs running larger numbers of inactive keys. We can re-do it in the `tree-states` world where cache clones are cheap.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Bump version to `v3.2.0`
## Additional Info
- ~~Blocked on #3597~~
- ~~Blocked on #3645~~
- ~~Blocked on #3653~~
- ~~Requires additional testing~~
## Issue Addressed
I missed this from https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/3491. peers were being banned at the behaviour level only. The identify errors are explained by this as well
## Proposed Changes
Add banning and unbanning
## Additional Info
Befor,e having tests that catch this was hard because the swarm was outside the behaviour. We could now have tests that prevent something like this in the future
## Issue Addressed
I noticed that [this build](https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/actions/runs/3269950873/jobs/5378036501) wasn't marked failed by Bors when the `syncing-simulator-ubuntu` job failed. This is because that job is absent from the `bors.toml` config.
## Proposed Changes
Add missing jobs to Bors config so that they are required:
- `syncing-simulator-ubuntu`
- `slasher-tests`
- `disallowed-from-async-lint`
The `disallowed-from-async-lint` was previously allowed to fail because it was considered beta, but I think it's stable enough now we may as well require it.
Overrides any previous option that enables the eth1 service.
Useful for operating a `light` beacon node.
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
Add flag to lengthen execution layer timeouts
Which issue # does this PR address?
#3607
## Proposed Changes
Added execution-timeout-multiplier flag and a cli test to ensure the execution layer config has the multiplier set correctly.
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
Add execution_timeout_multiplier to the execution layer config as Option<u32> and pass the u32 to HttpJsonRpc.
## Additional Info
Not certain that this is the best way to implement it so I'd appreciate any feedback.
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
## Issue Addressed
Fix a bug in block production that results in blocks with 0 attestations during the first slot of an epoch.
The bug is marked by debug logs of the form:
> DEBG Discarding attestation because of missing ancestor, block_root: 0x3cc00d9c9e0883b2d0db8606278f2b8423d4902f9a1ee619258b5b60590e64f8, pivot_slot: 4042591
It occurs when trying to look up the shuffling decision root for an attestation from a slot which is prior to fork choice's finalized block. This happens frequently when proposing in the first slot of the epoch where we have:
- `current_epoch == n`
- `attestation.data.target.epoch == n - 1`
- attestation shuffling epoch `== n - 3` (decision block being the last block of `n - 3`)
- `state.finalized_checkpoint.epoch == n - 2` (first block of `n - 2` is finalized)
Hence the shuffling decision slot is out of range of the fork choice backwards iterator _by a single slot_.
Unfortunately this bug was hidden when we weren't pruning fork choice, and then reintroduced in v2.5.1 when we fixed the pruning (https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/releases/tag/v2.5.1). There's no way to turn that off or disable the filtering in our current release, so we need a new release to fix this issue.
Fortunately, it also does not occur on every epoch boundary because of the gradual pruning of fork choice every 256 blocks (~8 epochs):
01e84b71f5/consensus/proto_array/src/proto_array_fork_choice.rs (L16)01e84b71f5/consensus/proto_array/src/proto_array.rs (L713-L716)
So the probability of proposing a 0-attestation block given a proposal assignment is approximately `1/32 * 1/8 = 0.39%`.
## Proposed Changes
- Load the block's shuffling ID from fork choice and verify it against the expected shuffling ID of the head state. This code was initially written before we had settled on a representation of shuffling IDs, so I think it's a nice simplification to make use of them here rather than more ad-hoc logic that fundamentally does the same thing.
## Additional Info
Thanks to @moshe-blox for noticing this issue and bringing it to our attention.
