joshua/dips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/seigler/dips synced 2025-07-27 01:36:14 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Add DIP8 - ChainLocks (#32)

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
thephez 2018-11-29 09:06:48 -05:00 • committed by GitHub
parent 0afc096282
commit 283c6c9938
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 239 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

239
dip-0008.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
<pre>
DIP: 0008
Title: ChainLocks
Author(s): Alexander Block
Special-Thanks: Andy Freer, Samuel Westrich, Thephez, Udjinm6
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Status: Proposed
Type: Standard
Created: 2018-11-16
License: MIT License
</pre>
## Table of Contents
1. [Abstract](#abstract)
1. [Motivation](#motivation)
1. [Prior Work](#prior-work)
1. [Signing attempts](#signing-attempts)
1. [Finalization of signed blocks](#finalization-of-signed-blocks)
1. [Handling of signed blocks](#handling-of-signed-blocks)
1. [Conflicting successful signing attempts](#conflicting-successful-signing-attempts)
1. [Implications of a signed block](#implications-of-a-signed-block)
1. [Network partitions](#network-partitions)
1. [Initial Block Download](#initial-block-download)
1. [Copyright](#copyright)
## Abstract
This DIP introduces ChainLocks, a technology for near-instant confirmation
of blocks and finding near-instant consensus on the longest valid/accepted
chain. ChainLocks leverages LLMQ Signing Requests/Sessions to accomplish
this.
## Motivation
When a node encounters multiple valid chains, it sets the local "active" chain
by selecting the one that has the most accumulated work. This is generally
known as the “longest-chain” rule as in most cases it is equivalent to
choosing the chain with the most blocks.
If both chains have the same amount of accumulated work (and in most cases the
same block count), a decision can’t be made solely based on the longest-chain
rule. In that case, the first chain received by the node is chosen to be the
active one and the other chain is put aside. If another block is then received
which extends the non-active chain so that it has the most accumulated work, it
becomes the active one. For example, even if a chain is currently 6 blocks
longer than any other chain, it’s still possible that a shorter chain becomes
longer and thus the active one. This is generally known as a chain
reorganization.
The most common situation where this happens is if two miners find a block at
approximately the same time. Such a block would race in the network and one
part of the network would accept one block as the new active chain while
another part of the network would accept the other block. In most cases,
whoever finds the next block also indirectly resolves the situation as the new
block’s parent block determines which of the chains will be the longest one.
This is generally known as orphaning of blocks.
It might also happen by accident. For example, if parts of the network with a
high hashrate are partitioned and miners are unaware of other miners mining on
another chain. When the network becomes healthy again, multiple chains will
exist that all branch from a common ancestor. While these chains are
propagated, one side of the previously partitioned network will have to
reorganize their local chain to the chain of the other side.
It can also happen on purpose if a miner with more hashrate than all other
miners combined decides to ignore other miner’s blocks and only mine on top
of their own blocks. This is generally known as the 51% mining attack. A miner
can even go as far as not publishing any blocks for some time so the remainder
of the network is not aware of the attack until they suddenly publish the
longer secret chain.
In all these cases, uncertainty arises for individual recipients of funds. When
a reorganization happens, it is not necessary for the new chain to include the
same transactions as the old chain. In addition to including new transactions
and excluding old transactions, it is possible to include transactions in the
new chain which are in conflict with the old chain. This means that a new chain
might send funds from the same inputs to another address. This results in the
only valid form of double spending possible in Dash (InstantSend is not
double-spendable even for this case) and most other Bitcoin based
cryptocurrencies.
This DIP proposes a new method, called ChainLocks, for reducing uncertainty
when receiving funds and removing the possibility of 51% mining attacks.
## Prior work
- [DIP 006: Long Living Masternode Quorums](https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0006.md)
- [DIP 007: LLMQ Signing Requests / Sessions](https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0007.md)
## Signing attempts
When a new valid block is received by a masternode, it must invoke the [DIP007
`SignIfMember` operation](https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0007.md#void-signifmemberuint256-id-uint256-msghash-int-activellmqs).
The request id for the operation is `hash(prevBlockHash, attemptNum)` and the
message hash is the hash of the new block (`newBlockHash`). The first time this
is attempted, `attemptNum` must be set to `0`.
In most cases, the majority of the LLMQ will sign the same message hash in the
first attempt and thus find consensus. This can be checked with the [DIP007
`HasRecoveredSig` operation](https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0007.md#bool-hasrecoveredsiguint256-id-uint256-msghash-int-activellmqs).
This will even hold true in most cases where 2 competing blocks are being
propagated inside the network, as only one is able to reach more LLMQ members
faster than the other and thus gain a majority in the signing request.
In some cases however, it is possible that no majority can be reached in the
first attempt. This could happen if too many members of the LLMQ are
malfunctioning or if more than two blocks are competing. If this happens, a
second signing request with an incremented `attemptNum` value must be
initiated. To check for a failed attempt, the [DIP007 `IsMajorityPossible`
operation](https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0007.md#bool-ismajoritypossibleuint256-id-uint256-msghash-int-activellmqs) must be used. An attempt
is also considered as failed when it did not succeed after some timeout.
On failure, another signing request with an incremented `attemptNum` value
should be initiated. The new request should use the message hash returned by
the [DIP007 `GetMostSignedSession` operation](https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0007.md#uint256-getmostsignedsessionuint256-id-int-activellmqs), which is the hash of the block
which had the most signatures in the last attempt. After a few attempts, a
request should result in a recovered threshold signature which indicates
consensus has been reached.
## Finalization of signed blocks
After a signing attempt has succeeded, another LLMQ must sign the successful
attempt. This is only performed once for each `prevBlockHash` and thus either
succeeds or fails without performing additional attempts.
The request id is `prevBlockHash` and the message hash is the block hash of the
previously successful attempt.
After a LLMQ member has successfully recovered the final ChainLocks
signature, it must create a P2P message and propagate it to all nodes. The
message is called `CLSIG` and has the following structure:
| Field | Type | Size | Description |
|--|--|--|--|
| prevBlockHash | uint256 | 32 | Hash of the previous block |
| blockHash | uint256 | 32 | Hash of the signed block from the successful attempt |
| attemptNum | uint16 | 2 | The attempt number |
| sig | BLSSig | 96 | Recovered signature |
This message is propagated through the inventory system.
Upon receipt, each node must perform the following verification before
announcing it to other nodes:
1. `prevBlockHash` must refer to a block that is part of any locally known
chain
2. Based on the deterministic masternode list at the chain height of
`prevBlockHash`, a quorum must be selected that was active at the time this
block was mined
3. The signature must verify against the quorum public key and
`hash(blockHash, attemptNum)`.
## Handling of signed blocks
When a new block has been successfully signed by a LLMQ and the `CLSIG` message
is received by a node, it should ensure that only this block is locally
accepted as the next block.
If an alternative block for the same height is received, it must be invalidated
and removed from the currently active chain since a signed block has already
been received. If the correct block is already present locally, its chain
should be activated as the new active chain. If the correct block is not known
locally, it must wait for this block to arrive and request it from other nodes
if necessary.
If a block has been received locally and no `CLSIG` message has been received
yet, it should be handled the same way it was handled before the introduction
of ChainLocks. This means the longest-chain and first-seen rules must be
applied. When the `CLSIG` message for this (or another) block is later
received, the above logic must be applied.
## Conflicting successful signing attempts
While the network is operating as expected, it’s not possible to encounter
two conflicting recovered signatures for two signing attempts of the same
parent block. It is possible for a malicious masternode operator to manually
double-sign two different attempts when a close race between two competing
blocks occurs. If one of the conflicting signature shares is withheld until the
second attempt succeeds and the conflicting signature is then propagated to the
network, the two attempts will result in two valid recovered signatures.
When performing the finalization of successful attempts, the LLMQ members will
only try to finalize a single attempt, which is usually the first one to
succeed. Only a single attempt will be able to gain a majority during
finalization, which removes the possibility of conflicts. In the worst case,
finalization completely fails, no `CLSIG` message is created and nodes must
fall back to the first-seen and longest-chain rules.
## Implications of a signed block
If a block was successfully signed, it can be safely assumed that no chain
reorganization before this block can happen, as all nodes would agree to reject
blocks with a lower height. This means that each transaction in this block and
all previous blocks can be considered irreversibly and instantly confirmed.
For InstantSend, this also means that the minimum of 6 confirmations of the
parent transaction can be removed if the parent transaction is inside or below
a signed block.
## Network partitions
If there is a network partition, the most likely thing to happen is that just
one side is able to mine a signed chain. The other side will encounter
non-signed blocks building on top of the last signed block. Miners who observe
this must assume that another currently unobserved chain is being built in
parallel. Since the parallel chain might be signed and could possibly overtake
their own chain after the network is healthy again, miners should act
accordingly (e.g. reduce hash power to reduce costs).
If the network is partitioned to a degree that makes a majority in the
responsible LLMQ impossible, all partitions in the network will be unable to
produce a signed chain. After the network is healthy again, one part of the
network will reorganize itself to the other’s chain after which the
responsible LLMQ will sign the new chain tip.
## Initial Block Download
While fully synced, nodes will usually receive `CLSIG` messages for new blocks
shortly after they are mined. If a node was offline for some time or has to
perform an initial block download, the signatures for old blocks will not be
present in the initial implementation.
Nodes should fall back to the plain “longest-chain” and “first-seen”
rules in this case until the first block signature for a new block is received.
We assume that old blocks are secure enough to not encounter any significant
forks which could lead to a different chain tip after initial block download is
finished. When the chain tip is reached, the first received signature will
resolve any ambiguities which might occur in the last few blocks.
If the need arises to include block signatures in initial block download, we
will update this DIP and implementations accordingly.
## Copyright
Copyright (c) 2018 Dash Core Group, Inc. [Licensed under the MIT
License](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)