-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 169
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update submitPoolAttestationsV2 endpoint #472
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When submitting an attestation via api or receiving one on p2p we also emit an event. We could consider adding a new single_attestation
event to accommodate ethereum/consensus-specs#3900 or convert to Attestation and use existing event, for backward compatibility, we would likely need to emit both events.
beacon-APIs/apis/eventstream/index.yaml
Lines 64 to 65 in ca2f9a8
attestation: | |
description: The node has received an Attestation (from P2P or API) that passes validation rules of the `beacon_attestation_{subnet_id}` topic |
@@ -79,10 +79,7 @@ post: | |||
anyOf: | |||
- type: array | |||
items: | |||
$ref: '../../../beacon-node-oapi.yaml#/components/schemas/Attestation' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so the idea is to always submit SingleAttestation even pre-Electra? in this case should remove the anyOf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
removed anyOf
The idea here is that this endpoint should only be used post electra. Since the v2 endpoint is fairly new I thought it'd be ok to repurpose it for post electra usage. Lighthouse is only using the v2 endpoint post electra, but maybe other clients would prefer a v3 endpoint?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we need a v3, this endpoint is effectively only used in devnets right now and would be updated for the next devnet and I don't think anyone is running mixed client setups yet.
In Lodestar we also start using the attestation v2 apis post-electra but what I meant is that after electra is live on mainnet we can be sure that all nodes implement the v2 apis and the v1 apis become unusable since those only support phase0 attestations, this means we could completely remove them from the codebase. We still wanna support earlier forks though, e.g. our sim tests do fork transitions from phase0 to latest fork, but for that the v2 apis need to be backward compatible.
We should clarify what type of attestation should be submitted pre- and post-electra, submitting SingleAttestation
should also work for earlier forks, so I don't think this is an issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since ethereum/consensus-specs#3900 now also updates the honest validator spec, wouldn't it make the most sense to submit whatever attestation format the validator works with, i.e. Attestation
(phase0) for pre-electra and SingleAttestation
post-electra. This means we don't need to do any transformation before gossiping the attestations.
types/attestation.yaml
Outdated
@@ -15,6 +15,23 @@ IndexedAttestation: | |||
$ref: './primitive.yaml#/Signature' | |||
description: "The BLS signature of the `IndexedAttestation`, created by the validator of the attestation." | |||
|
|||
SingleAttestation: | |||
type: object | |||
description: "The [`SingleAttestation`](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/v1.3.0/specs/electra/beacon-chain.md#singleattestation) object from the CL spec." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the spec reference results in a 404, need to wait for upstream PR to be part of a pre-release, or update it later on
I want to echo @eserilev concerns of the non-simplicity of this change here too, see |
@@ -66,6 +67,11 @@ get: | |||
value: | | |||
event: attestation | |||
data: {"aggregation_bits":"0x01", "signature":"0x1b66ac1fb663c9bc59509846d6ec05345bd908eda73e670af888da41af171505cc411d61252fb6cb3fa0017b679f8bb2305b26a285fa2737f175668d0dff91cc1b66ac1fb663c9bc59509846d6ec05345bd908eda73e670af888da41af171505", "data":{"slot":"1", "index":"1", "beacon_block_root":"0xcf8e0d4e9587369b2301d0790347320302cc0943d5a1884560367e8208d920f2", "source":{"epoch":"1", "root":"0xcf8e0d4e9587369b2301d0790347320302cc0943d5a1884560367e8208d920f2"}, "target":{"epoch":"1", "root":"0xcf8e0d4e9587369b2301d0790347320302cc0943d5a1884560367e8208d920f2"}}} | |||
single_attestation: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if it's not better to simply add the validator index as a stand-alone field here, so that both index and committee list are available to consumers - ideally, this would be introduced in a way that doesn't require downstream tooling to change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ideally, this would be introduced in a way that doesn't require downstream tooling to change.
No matter if we go with ethereum/consensus-specs#3900 or not, there will be an impact on downstream consumers since the Attestation
is modified in electra.
For single_attestation
it would be best to start emitting it even pre-electra (by converting phase0.Attestation
to SingleAttestation
) so that consumers can switch to the new topic earlier.
Overall, it seems like the cleanest solution would be to also go with ethereum/consensus-specs#3787 and AggregatedAttestation
(as noted in ethereum/consensus-specs#3900 (comment)). We could then add two new topics onchain_attestation
and aggregate_attestation
and completely deprecate attestation
post-electra.
This seems cleaner from a consumer point of view as well, you can always subscribe to multiple topics if you want to track all kind of attestations but as it is right now, the attestation
topic always emits all 3 different types of attestations which is not great imo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As far as I understand it, we need access to the state in order to convert between SingleAttestation
to Attestation
. So emitting an Attestation
event for this new endpoint seems to add complexity
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
access to the state in order to convert between SingleAttestation to Attestation
you only need access to shuffling but this is already required to validate Attestation
@@ -66,6 +67,11 @@ get: | |||
value: | | |||
event: attestation | |||
data: {"aggregation_bits":"0x01", "signature":"0x1b66ac1fb663c9bc59509846d6ec05345bd908eda73e670af888da41af171505cc411d61252fb6cb3fa0017b679f8bb2305b26a285fa2737f175668d0dff91cc1b66ac1fb663c9bc59509846d6ec05345bd908eda73e670af888da41af171505", "data":{"slot":"1", "index":"1", "beacon_block_root":"0xcf8e0d4e9587369b2301d0790347320302cc0943d5a1884560367e8208d920f2", "source":{"epoch":"1", "root":"0xcf8e0d4e9587369b2301d0790347320302cc0943d5a1884560367e8208d920f2"}, "target":{"epoch":"1", "root":"0xcf8e0d4e9587369b2301d0790347320302cc0943d5a1884560367e8208d920f2"}}} | |||
single_attestation: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ideally, this would be introduced in a way that doesn't require downstream tooling to change.
No matter if we go with ethereum/consensus-specs#3900 or not, there will be an impact on downstream consumers since the Attestation
is modified in electra.
For single_attestation
it would be best to start emitting it even pre-electra (by converting phase0.Attestation
to SingleAttestation
) so that consumers can switch to the new topic earlier.
Overall, it seems like the cleanest solution would be to also go with ethereum/consensus-specs#3787 and AggregatedAttestation
(as noted in ethereum/consensus-specs#3900 (comment)). We could then add two new topics onchain_attestation
and aggregate_attestation
and completely deprecate attestation
post-electra.
This seems cleaner from a consumer point of view as well, you can always subscribe to multiple topics if you want to track all kind of attestations but as it is right now, the attestation
topic always emits all 3 different types of attestations which is not great imo.
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ post: | |||
operationId: submitPoolAttestationsV2 | |||
summary: Submit Attestation objects to node | |||
description: | | |||
Submits Attestation objects to the node. Each attestation in the request body is processed individually. | |||
Submits SingleAttestation objects to the node. Each attestation in the request body is processed individually. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we might wanna just say "attestations" here as pre-electra we pass phase0.Attestation
Co-authored-by: Nico Flaig <[email protected]>
If the decision is made to introduce a
SingleAttestation
object via ethereum/consensus-specs#3900 it may make more sense forsubmitPoolAttestationsV2
to accept a list ofSingleAttestations
instead of a list ofAttestation
objects.