- there was a bug in responding range blob requests where we would incorrectly label the first slot of an epoch as a non-skipped slot if it were skipped. this bug did not exist in the code for responding to block range request because the logic error was mitigated by defensive coding elsewhere
- there was a bug where a block received during range sync without a corresponding blob (and vice versa) was incorrectly interpreted as a stream termination
- RPC size limit fixes.
- Our blob cache was dead locking so I removed use of it for now.
- Because of our change in finalized sync batch size from 2 to 1 and our transition to using exact epoch boundaries for batches (rather than one slot past the epoch boundary), we need to sync finalized sync to 2 epochs + 1 slot past our peer's finalized slot in order to finalize the chain locally.
- use fork context bytes in rpc methods on both the server and client side
## Proposed Changes
With proposer boosting implemented (#2822) we have an opportunity to re-org out late blocks.
This PR adds three flags to the BN to control this behaviour:
* `--disable-proposer-reorgs`: turn aggressive re-orging off (it's on by default).
* `--proposer-reorg-threshold N`: attempt to orphan blocks with less than N% of the committee vote. If this parameter isn't set then N defaults to 20% when the feature is enabled.
* `--proposer-reorg-epochs-since-finalization N`: only attempt to re-org late blocks when the number of epochs since finalization is less than or equal to N. The default is 2 epochs, meaning re-orgs will only be attempted when the chain is finalizing optimally.
For safety Lighthouse will only attempt a re-org under very specific conditions:
1. The block being proposed is 1 slot after the canonical head, and the canonical head is 1 slot after its parent. i.e. at slot `n + 1` rather than building on the block from slot `n` we build on the block from slot `n - 1`.
2. The current canonical head received less than N% of the committee vote. N should be set depending on the proposer boost fraction itself, the fraction of the network that is believed to be applying it, and the size of the largest entity that could be hoarding votes.
3. The current canonical head arrived after the attestation deadline from our perspective. This condition was only added to support suppression of forkchoiceUpdated messages, but makes intuitive sense.
4. The block is being proposed in the first 2 seconds of the slot. This gives it time to propagate and receive the proposer boost.
## Additional Info
For the initial idea and background, see: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2353#issuecomment-950238004
There is also a specification for this feature here: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3034
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: pawan <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
This is a *potentially* contentious change, but I find it annoying that the validator monitor logs `WARN` and `ERRO` for imperfect attestations. Perfect attestation performance is unachievable (don't believe those photo-shopped beauty magazines!) since missed and poorly-packed blocks by other validators will reduce your performance.
When the validator monitor is on with 10s or more validators, I find the logs are washed out with ERROs that are not worth investigating. I suspect that users who really want to know if validators are missing attestations can do so by matching the content of the log, rather than the log level.
I'm open to feedback about this, especially from anyone who is relying on the current log levels.
## Additional Info
NA
## Breaking Changes Notes
The validator monitor will no longer emit `WARN` and `ERRO` logs for sub-optimal attestation performance. The logs will now be emitted at `INFO` level. This change was introduced to avoid cluttering the `WARN` and `ERRO` logs with alerts that are frequently triggered by the actions of other network participants (e.g., a missed block) and require no action from the user.
## Issue Addressed
Implementing the light_client_gossip topics but I'm not there yet.
Which issue # does this PR address?
Partially #3651
## Proposed Changes
Add light client gossip topics.
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
I'm going to Implement light_client_finality_update and light_client_optimistic_update gossip topics. Currently I've attempted the former and I'm seeking feedback.
## Additional Info
I've only implemented the light_client_finality_update topic because I wanted to make sure I was on the correct path. Also checking that the gossiped LightClientFinalityUpdate is the same as the locally constructed one is not implemented because caching the updates will make this much easier. Could someone give me some feedback on this please?
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: GeemoCandama <104614073+GeemoCandama@users.noreply.github.com>
