2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
.. _proto_003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protocol 003_PsddFKi3
|
|
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description of the patch
|
|
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
Fix to prevent account creation spam
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
While creating accounts currently requires a .257 tez burn, there is
|
|
|
|
currently no cost to create implicit accounts, despite them occupying
|
|
|
|
space in the context.
|
|
|
|
This patch adjusts the cost to .257 tez for both regular (KT1) and
|
|
|
|
implicit (tz1) accounts.
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
Error handling for nonce revelation
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
In cycle 48, a baker who lost their deposits and rewards due to double
|
|
|
|
baking also did not inject nonce revelation. The protocol reached an
|
|
|
|
error condition after trying to take away rewards from an account for
|
|
|
|
which rewards had already been slashed. As a result, no new blocks
|
|
|
|
could be accepted unless the nonces were revealed. The patch ensures
|
|
|
|
correct handling of this scenario.
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
Add RPCs for voting
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
This patch introduces RPCs to query ballot status, functionality
|
|
|
|
needed by bakers to interact with proposals to amend the protocol.
|
|
|
|
They are the following:
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sum of ballots cast so far during a voting period.
|
|
|
|
GET /chains/<chain_id>/blocks/<block_id>/votes/ballots
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ballots cast so far during a voting period.
|
|
|
|
GET /chains/<chain_id>/blocks/<block_id>/votes/ballot_list
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current period kind: proposal, testing_vote, testing, promotion_vote.
|
|
|
|
GET /chains/<chain_id>/blocks/<block_id>/votes/current_period_kind
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current expected quorum.
|
|
|
|
GET /chains/<chain_id>/blocks/<block_id>/votes/current_quorum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
List of delegates with their voting weight, in number of rolls.
|
|
|
|
GET /chains/<chain_id>/blocks/<block_id>/votes/listings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
List of proposals with number of supporters.
|
|
|
|
GET /chains/<chain_id>/blocks/<block_id>/votes/proposals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current proposal under evaluation.
|
|
|
|
GET /chains/<chain_id>/blocks/<block_id>/votes/current_proposal
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
Correct accounting for approval voting
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
The current protocol does not properly count baking rolls during the
|
|
|
|
approval voting phase. This is corrected in this version.
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How to apply the patch
|
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If compiling from source, please pull the latest code from the mainnet
|
|
|
|
branch. From a clone of the git repository, a minimal update command
|
|
|
|
is ``git checkout mainnet && git pull && eval $(opam env) && make
|
|
|
|
build-deps && make``.
|
|
|
|
Tezos binaries (node, client, baker, endorser, etc) should not be
|
|
|
|
running while you re-compile.
|
|
|
|
If using the script ``mainnet.sh`` based on docker provided at
|
|
|
|
https://gitlab.com/tezos/tezos, simply do ``./mainnet.sh restart`` as
|
|
|
|
every call to mainnet.sh checks for updates and updates if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The node will automatically switch over to the new protocol at block
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
height **204762** expected to occur after 2018-11-26T17:30:00 UTC.
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After updating, all processes (the node, baker, endorser, and accuser)
|
|
|
|
should be restarted. The updated node handles multiple protocols but
|
|
|
|
notice that there are several, protocol-specific, versions of every
|
|
|
|
other processes.
|
|
|
|
In order not to miss a block or an endorsement, you may run versions
|
|
|
|
002_PsYLVpVv and 003_PsddFKi3 of the baker and endorser in parallel.
|
|
|
|
Versions 003_PsddFKi3 of the baking and endorsement processes will not
|
|
|
|
start baking or endorsing until the target block height. Version
|
|
|
|
002_PsYLVpVv will stop by themselves and it will be safe to stop them
|
|
|
|
at that time. This has been tested and the processes do not attempt to
|
|
|
|
bake at the same height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, as an extra precaution, specially if you do not use a
|
|
|
|
hardware key or a remote-signer with a high water-mark, you may
|
|
|
|
consider waiting until the target block height to shut down the old
|
|
|
|
process and start the new one.)
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
More details on fees and cost model
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protocol:
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
The creation of a new tz{1,2,3} address now requires a burn of `ꜩ0.257`,
|
|
|
|
in-line with the creation of KT account.
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
Every manager operation now costs at least ``10000`` in gas,
|
|
|
|
a transaction that creates an address has a default cost of ``10100`` in gas.
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reveal:
|
|
|
|
Consumed gas: 10000
|
|
|
|
Consumed storage: 0 bytes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction (when the target tz{1,2.3} is empty).
|
|
|
|
Consumed gas: 10100
|
|
|
|
Consumed storage: 277 bytes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction (when the target tz{1,2.3} is not empty).
|
|
|
|
Consumed gas: 10000
|
|
|
|
Consumed storage: 0 bytes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baker
|
|
|
|
~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
The baker and mempool filters now require a minimal fee to propagate
|
|
|
|
and include operations into blocks. This default is not set at the
|
|
|
|
protocol level but rather in the configuration of the node and the baker.
|
|
|
|
Bakers can thus decide of the settings that work best for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The minimal fee depends on the operation sent (transaction, origination,
|
|
|
|
revelation, etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When considering the injection of an operation in a block, the
|
|
|
|
baker will check its size and gas and reject it if the associated fees are too low.
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
The expected fees are computed using this formula:
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
fees >= (minimal_fees + minimal_nanotez_per_byte * size + minimal_nanotez_per_gas_unit * gas)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where the size is the number of bytes of the complete serialized
|
|
|
|
operation, i.e. including header and signature.
|
|
|
|
When sending multiple transactions at once (i.e. packed operations),
|
|
|
|
the baker will require the summed fees of all the operations to match
|
|
|
|
the summed gas of all the operations and the total size of the packed
|
|
|
|
operations, still including header and signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By default:
|
|
|
|
::
|
2018-11-25 18:54:07 +04:00
|
|
|
minimal_fees = 0.000 1 ꜩ (100 µꜩ)
|
|
|
|
minimal_nanotez_per_gas_unit = 100 nꜩ/gu (0.000 000 1 ꜩ/gu)
|
|
|
|
minimal_nanotez_per_byte = 1000 nꜩ/B (0.000 001 ꜩ/B)
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-26 14:44:32 +04:00
|
|
|
For instance, a single transaction to an existing implicit address
|
2018-11-25 18:54:07 +04:00
|
|
|
will require a transaction fee of at least `0.001 273 ꜩ`
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
to be included by bakers who choose to follow the default settings.
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
These settings may be changed by passing the following flags to the baker
|
|
|
|
(``--minimal-fees <amount in tez>``,
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
``--minimal-nanotez-per-gas-unit <amount in nanotez>``,
|
|
|
|
``--minimal-nanotez-per-byte <amount in nanotez>``).
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
Delegates distributing rewards should be aware of these thresholds
|
2018-11-26 14:44:32 +04:00
|
|
|
for their transactions to be successfully included.
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Node
|
|
|
|
~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
The node also filters operations following the same principles as
|
|
|
|
above. If an operation does not carry sufficient fees, a node
|
|
|
|
following the default setting will not include it in its mempool.
|
2018-11-26 14:44:32 +04:00
|
|
|
Hence an operation without fee won't even propagate through
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
the network. The constant can be changed with the following RPC
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
call:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
./tezos-client rpc post /chains/main/mempool/filter with '{ "minimal_fees": "0", "minimal_nanotez_per_gas_unit": "0", "minimal_nanotez_per_byte": "0" }'
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
The constants used by the node and the baker do not need to be equal,
|
|
|
|
but the node needs to be less restrictive than the baker, otherwise
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
the baker won't even see the operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An injection node (i.e. a specific node targeted by wallet for
|
|
|
|
injection operation) might deactivate the filter (by using the
|
2018-11-25 18:41:55 +04:00
|
|
|
previous RPC call) in order to accept any operation and give them a
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
chance to be propagated to a baker that is willing to accept fee-less
|
|
|
|
operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
FAQ
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 17:55:54 +04:00
|
|
|
Q. Who should apply this patch?
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
A. Anyone running a node needs to update. If you are using a wallet
|
|
|
|
that connects to a third party node, you do not need to apply a
|
|
|
|
patch, but you can inquire with the wallet developers to make sure
|
|
|
|
they are running a patched node. If you are delegating your tez you
|
|
|
|
may wish to inquire with your baker that he is running the patched
|
|
|
|
node in order not to miss any reward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. What are the risks and impact of account creation spam?
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
A. Over time, account creation spam can make it uneconomical to run a
|
|
|
|
node due to the amount of disk space required. This would make it
|
|
|
|
harder for people to participate in the ecosystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. What happens if I apply the patch early?
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
A. The patch will automatically activate at a set block-height.
|
|
|
|
Specifically, block height 204762 (approximately Monday Nov 26 1730
|
|
|
|
UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. What happens if I don't apply the patch?
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
A. Your node will continue tracking a branch with a known bug which
|
|
|
|
does not represent the consensus among network participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. Why not use the governance mechanism to correct these issues?
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
A. The governance mechanism is a slow, deliberative, procedure for
|
|
|
|
deciding on the evolution of the code. It is not a substitute for
|
|
|
|
security patches which require quick deployment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. Why not mandate minimal transaction fees in the protocol?
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
A. Transaction fees solve a slightly different problem, but they can
|
|
|
|
help. If bakers wish to filter out transaction with low fees, they
|
|
|
|
can run the process by passing the flag:
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-25 18:54:07 +04:00
|
|
|
--minimal-fees (default 0.000 1)
|
2018-11-25 12:43:34 +04:00
|
|
|
--minimal-nanotez-per-byte (default 1000)
|
|
|
|
--minimal-nanotez-per-gaz-unit (default 100)
|
|
|
|
|
2018-11-24 20:38:27 +04:00
|
|
|
1 mutez is equivalent to 1000 nanotez. The patch does include
|
|
|
|
default minimal fees in the mempool, but individual bakers can
|
|
|
|
choose to override these.
|