1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
|
Return-Path: <0xb10c@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F11C000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:07:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32BD81025
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:07:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id bvyaVGyC8MWY
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:07:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-wm1-x334.google.com (mail-wm1-x334.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::334])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E59BF80DE9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:07:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm1-x334.google.com with SMTP id i3so7248786wmq.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 07 Sep 2021 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
h=from:subject:to:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
bh=ZiTxmdq8kU5AYAwVFvqamMZWjAXRuN1u++9XidUlhjQ=;
b=UQ5ZI8SBPB8VDzylJJVlu2uAwoM2jG01BXe5ShX0DkWN/8ex7ArQbV/n4EoD6Yat/x
S/31vzLgv2CJn1V4HRNKU0k7dBMZFY5u9R/GJkVgB6pARJtG6RLN6UKFkreaASEsCBof
NP2eBjvods8ozoQtTSAAB1CCpUwjS6zK58pnrUfBJG7CRIx5L9TLJ8EBG/t0NjsfXJ7d
V46yKFiiVvoTAYpYMHWDUU6dTY/ixqgWTPErzmNo7BV399OXZeDhiBukmoMElxmselJ7
X9ySFP1aso5b7x+zAu14dBr/3DNWzRvn6An8Chrdu53mWS/Ivf43DPtPfd2eR2IRoRKT
rtQg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:message-id:date:user-agent
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
bh=ZiTxmdq8kU5AYAwVFvqamMZWjAXRuN1u++9XidUlhjQ=;
b=ByN2sdl1OuYIrtrnvot/AUdhD+ZGkyNherak7lk7cDtV/mIj11uWOlTrA7QWA3s7EA
nR0oUfvrtc+Lx1UkSs/lZsttF2fKkjbmRCaVL1sawcW8XILcCBX+zEMgUfQR4U2UXaWU
6mjHlT36mPNM5CCMIm9TTtXAHrqOSrpnq+QclKHn7SgoyQSjEMVQa3rCMCFT1oHtK9Qz
WDC/cSf+IaLdwafBfyAVMAX0uU/BOtmQe4pGC2+wpQSrBjDOu9oyHHWnuVyR1Fat2E2m
S1L7e/1aLbuaIFL/1RNY3xQ2x47jlYO4UTJ0pqVK3wgVuU0lLUCmcQpRsECzk+a9AKy2
fmug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532w4C2Anjj+35gsLZNzMQJcDzVi39QcF8eUNxiN1eXOAn//PVT9
CW8OnEIQ5h250H5gA3GDzTNBGnullo0rww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzT2mY/anVnG8Vc4UyphTPaM6JGFMPd2ZWpaSzNOSrj3JqbTYLNbXqaMBPn/zsqQ7oydJwn5A==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cbcd:: with SMTP id n13mr4694416wmi.49.1631030868645;
Tue, 07 Sep 2021 09:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.28] (fttx-pool-185.76.98.156.bambit.de.
[185.76.98.156])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm11523312wrs.53.2021.09.07.09.07.48
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 07 Sep 2021 09:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: 0xB10C <0xb10c@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <83272afb-ed87-15b6-e02c-16bb1102beb4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 18:07:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 16:11:49 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Reorgs on SigNet - Looking for feedback on approach
and parameters
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 16:07:55 -0000
Hello,
tl;dr: We want to make reorgs on SigNet a reality and are looking for
feedback on approach and parameters.
One of the ideas for SigNet is the possibility for it to be reliably
unreliable, for example, planned chain reorganizations. These have not
been implemented yet.
My summerofbitcoin.org mentee Nikhil Bartwal and I have been looking at
implementing support for reorgs on SigNet. We are looking for feedback
on which approach and parameters to use. Please consider answering the
questions below if you or your company is interested in chain
reorganizations on SigNet.
With feedback from AJ and Kalle Alm (thanks again!), we came up with two
scenarios that could be implemented in the current SigNet miner script
[0]. Both would trigger automatically in a fixed block interval.
Scenario 1 simulates a race scenario where two chains compete for D
blocks. Scenario 2 simulates a chain rollback where the top D blocks get
replaced by a chain that outgrows the earlier branch.
AJ proposed to allow SigNet users to opt-out of reorgs in case they
explicitly want to remain unaffected. This can be done by setting a
to-be-reorged version bit flag on the blocks that won't end up in the
most work chain. Node operators could choose not to accept to-be-reorged
SigNet blocks with this flag set via a configuration argument.
The reorg-interval X very much depends on the user's needs. One could
argue that there should be, for example, three reorgs per day, each 48
blocks apart. Such a short reorg interval allows developers in all time
zones to be awake during one or two reorgs per day. Developers don't
need to wait for, for example, a week until they can test their reorgs
next. However, too frequent reorgs could hinder other SigNet users.
We propose that the reorg depth D is deterministically random between a
minimum and a maximum based on, e.g., the block hash or the nonce of the
last block before the reorg. Compared to a local randint() based
implementation, this allows reorg-handling tests and external tools to
calculate the expected reorg depth.
# Scenario 1: Race between two chains
For this scenario, at least two nodes and miner scripts need to be
running. An always-miner A continuously produces blocks and rejects
blocks with the to-be-reorged version bit flag set. And a race-miner R
that only mines D blocks at the start of each interval and then waits X
blocks. A and R both have the same hash rate. Assuming both are well
connected to the network, it's random which miner will first mine and
propagate a block. In the end, the A miner chain will always win the race.
# Scenario 2: Chain rollback
This scenario only requires one miner and Bitcoin Core node but also
works in a multiminer setup. The miners mine D blocks with the
to-be-reorged version bit flag set at the start of the interval. After
allowing the block at height X+D to propagate, they invalidate the block
at height X+1 and start mining on block X again. This time without
setting the to-be-reorged version bit flag. Non-miner nodes will reorg
to the new tip at height X+D+1, and the first-seen branch stalls.
# Questions
1. How do you currently test your applications reorg handling? Do
the two discussed scenarios (race and chain rollback) cover your
needs? Are we missing something you'd find helpful?
2. How often should reorgs happen on the default SigNet? Should
there be multiple reorgs a day (e.g., every 48 or 72 blocks
assuming 144 blocks per day) as your engineers need to be awake?
Do you favor less frequent reorgs (once per week or month)? Why?
3. How deep should the reorgs be on average? Do you want to test
deeper reorgs (10+ blocks) too?
# Next Steps
We will likely implement Scenario 1, the race between two chains, first.
We'll set up a public test-SigNet along with a faucet, block explorer,
and a block tree visualization. If there is interest in the second
approach, chain rollbacks can be implemented too. Future work will add
the possibility to include conflicting transactions in the two branches.
After enough testing, the default SigNet can start to do periodical
reorgs, too.
Thanks,
0xB10C
[0]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/signet/miner
|
