2624cd2b3c
Former-commit-id: b853fd1c3ea2284d30d7f3032cf83287c7198c10 [formerly c012daacceec9cb3497f1d066ee3ca2d20aa5b14] Former-commit-id: 0a5a60c296f878c7057b25fc759dec2487363d30 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| contracts | ||
| database | ||
| internal | ||
| mainchain | ||
| node | ||
| notary | ||
| observer | ||
| p2p | ||
| params | ||
| proposer | ||
| simulator | ||
| syncer | ||
| txpool | ||
| types | ||
| utils | ||
| BUILD.bazel | ||
| CONTRIBUTING.md | ||
| main.go | ||
| READINGS.md | ||
| README.md | ||
Prysmatic Labs Main Sharding Reference
This document serves as a main reference for Prysmatic Labs' sharding implementation for the go-ethereum client, along with our roadmap and compilation of active research and approaches to various sharding schemes.
Table of Contents
- Sharding Introduction
- Roadmap Phases
- Go-Ethereum Sharding Alpha Implementation
- Security Considerations
- Beyond Phase 1
- Active Questions and Research
- Community Updates and Contributions
- Acknowledgements
- References
Sharding Introduction
Currently, every single node running the Ethereum network has to process every single transaction that goes through the network. This gives the blockchain a high amount of security because of how much validation goes into each block, but at the same time it means that an entire blockchain is only as fast as its individual nodes and not the sum of its parts. Currently, transactions on the EVM are non-parallelizable, and every transaction is executed in sequence globally. The scalability problem then has to do with the idea that a blockchain can have at most 2 of these 3 properties: decentralization, security, and scalability.
If we have scalability and security, it would mean that our blockchain is centralized and that would allow it to have a faster throughput. Right now, Ethereum is decentralized and secure, but not scalable.
An approach to solving the scalability trilemma is the idea of blockchain sharding, where we split the entire state of the network into partitions called shards that contain their own independent piece of state and transaction history. In this system, certain nodes would process transactions only for certain shards, allowing the throughput of transactions processed in total across all shards to be much higher than having a single shard do all the work as the main chain does now.
Basic Sharding Idea and Design
A sharded blockchain system is made possible by having nodes store “signed metadata” in the main chain of latest changes within each shard chain. Through this, we manage to create a layer of abstraction that tells us enough information about the global, synced state of parallel shard chains. These messages are called collation headers, which are specific structures that encompass important information about the chainstate of a shard in question. Collations are created by actors known as proposers that are tasked with packaging transactions into collation bodies. These collations are then voted on by a party of actors known as notaries. These notaries are randomly selected for particular periods of time in certain shards and are then tasked into reaching consensus on these chains via a proof of stake system occurring through a smart contract on the Ethereum main chain.
These collations are holistic descriptions of the state and transactions on a certain shard. A collation header at its most basic, high level summary contains the following information:
- Information about what shard the collation corresponds to (let’s say shard 10)
For detailed information on protocol primitives including collations, see: Protocol Primitives. We will have two types of nodes that do the heavy lifting of our sharding logic: proposers and notaries. The basic role of proposers is to fetch pending transactions from the txpool, wrap them into collations, and submit them to a smart contract on the Ethereum main chain.
Notaries stake ETH into the contract and vote on collations submitted by proposers during a certain period. Notaries are in charge of checking for data availability of such collations and reach consensus on canonical shard chains.
So then, are proposers in charge of state execution? The short answer is that phase 1 will contain no state execution. Instead, proposers will simply package all types of transactions into collations and later down the line, agents known as executors will download, run, and validate state as they need to through possibly different types of execution engines (potentially TrueBit-style, interactive execution).
This separation of concerns between notaries and proposers allows for more computational efficiency within the system, as notaries will not have to do the heavy lifting of state execution and focus solely on consensus through fork-choice rules. In this scheme, it makes sense that eventually proposers will become executors in later phases of a sharding spec.
Notaries periodically get assigned to different shards, a period is defined as a certain interval of blocks.
Given that we are splitting up the global state of the Ethereum blockchain into shards, new types of attacks arise because fewer resources are required to completely dominate a shard. This is why a source of randomness and periods are critical components to ensuring the integrity of the system.
The Ethereum Wiki’s Sharding FAQ suggests pseudorandom sampling of notaries on each shard. The goal is so that these notaries will not know which shard they will get in advance. Otherwise, malicious actors could concentrate resources into a single shard and try to overtake it (See: 1% Attack).
Casper Proof of Stake (Casper FFG and CBC) makes this quite trivial because there is already a set of global validators that we can select notaries from. The source of randomness needs to be common to ensure that this sampling is entirely compulsory and can’t be gamed by the notaries in question.
In practice, the first phase of sharding will not be a complete overhaul of the network, but rather an implementation through a smart contract on the main chain known as the Sharding Manager Contract (SMC). Its responsibility is to manage submitted collation headers and manage notaries.
Among its basic responsibilities, the SMC is responsible for reconciling notaries across all shards. It is in charge of pseudorandomly sampling notaries from addresses that have staked ETH into the SMC. The SMC is also responsible for providing immediate collation header verification that records a valid collation header hash on the main chain. In essence, sharding revolves around being able to store collation headers and their associated votes in the main chain through this smart contract.
Roadmap Phases
Prysmatic Labs will follow the parts of the (now deprecated) Phase 1 Spec posted on ETHResearch by the Foundation's research team to roll out a local version of qudratic sharding. In essence, the high-level sharding roadmap is as follows as outlined by Justin Drake:
- Phase 1: Basic sharding without EVM
- Blob shard without transactions
- Proposers
- Notaries
- Phase 2: EVM state transition function
- Full nodes only
- Asynchronous cross-contract calls only
- Account abstraction
- eWASM
- Archive accumulators
- Storage rent
- Phase 3: Light client state protocol
- Executors
- Stateless clients
- Phase 4: Cross-shard transactions
- Internally-synchronous zones
- Phase 5: Tight coupling with main chain security
- Data availability proofs
- Casper integration
- Internally fork-free sharding
- Manager shard
- Phase 6: Super-quadratic sharding
- Load balancing
To concretize these phases, we will be releasing our implementation of sharding for the geth client as follows:
The Ruby Release: Local Network
Our current work is focused on creating a localized version of phase 1, quadratic sharding that would include the following:
- A minimal, sharding node system that will interact with a Sharding Manager Contract on a locally running geth node
- Ability to deposit ETH into the SMC through the command line and to be selected as a notary by the local SMC in addition to the ability to withdraw the ETH staked
- A proposer that listens for pending tx’s, creates collations, and submits them to the SMC
- Ability to inspect the shard states and visualize the working system locally
We will forego several security considerations that will be critical for testnet and mainnet release for the purposes of demonstration and local network testing as part of the Ruby Release (See: Security Considerations Not Included in Ruby).
ETA: To be determined
The Sapphire Release: Ropsten Testnet
Part 1 of the Sapphire Release will focus around getting the Ruby Release polished enough to be live on an Ethereum testnet and manage a set of notaries voting on collations through the on-chain SMC. This will require a lot more elaborate simulations around the safety of the randomness behind the notary assignments in the SMC. Futhermore we need to pass stress testing against DoS and other sorts of byzantine attacks. Additionally, it will be the first release to have real users proposing collations concurrently with notaries reaching consensus on these collations.
Part 2 of the Sapphire Release will focus on implementing state execution and defining the State Transition Function for sharding on a local testnet (as outlined in Beyond Phase 1) as an extenstion to the Ruby Release.
ETA: To be determined
The Diamond Release: Ethereum Mainnet
The Diamond Release will reconcile the best parts of the previous releases and deploy a full-featured, cross-shard transaction system through a Sharding Manager Contract on the Ethereum mainnet. As expected, this is the most difficult and time consuming release on the horizon for Prysmatic Labs. We plan on growing our community effort significantly over the first few releases to get all hands-on deck preparing for real ether to be staked in the SMC.
The Diamond Release should be considered the production release candidate for sharding Ethereum on the mainnet.
ETA: To Be determined
Go-Ethereum Sharding Alpha Implementation
Prysmatic Labs will begin by focusing its implementation entirely on the Ruby Release from our roadmap. We plan on being as pragmatic as possible to create something that can be locally run by any developer as soon as possible. Our initial deliverable will center around a command line tool that will serve as an entrypoint into a sharding node that allows staking to become a notary, proposer, manages shard state local storage, and does on-chain voting of collation headers via the Sharding Manager Contract.
Here is a full reference spec explaining how our initial system will function:
System Architecture
Our implementation revolves around 5 core components:
- A locally-running geth node that spins up an instance of the Ethereum blockchain and mines on the Proof of Work chain
- A Sharding Manager Contract (SMC) that is deployed onto this blockchain instance
- A sharding node that connects to the running geth node through JSON-RPC, provides bindings to the SMC
- A notary service that allows users to stake ETH into the SMC and be selected as a notary in a certain period on a shard
- A proposer service that is tasked with processing pending tx's into collations that are then submitted to the SMC. In phase 1, proposers do not execute state, but rather just serialize pending tx data into possibly valid/invalid data blobs.
Our initial implementation will function through simple command line arguments that will allow a user running the local geth node to deposit ETH into the SMC and join as a notary that is randomly assigned to a shard in a certain period.
A basic, end-to-end example of the system is as follows:
-
User starts a sharding node and deposits 1000ETH into the SMC: the sharding node connects to a locally running geth node and asks the user to confirm a deposit from his/her personal account.
-
Client connects & listens to incoming headers from the geth node and assigns user as notary on a shard per period: The notary is selected in CURRENT_PERIOD + LOOKEAD_PERIOD (which is around a 5 minutes notice) and must download data for collation headers submitted in that time period.
-
Concurrently, a proposer protocol processes pending transaction data into blobs: the proposer client will create collation bodies and submit their headers to the SMC. In Phase 1, it is important to note that we will not have any state execution. Proposers will just serialize pending tx into fixed collation body sizes without executing them for state transition validity.
-
The set of notaries vote on collation headers as canonical unitl the period ends: the headers that received >= 2/3 votes are accepted as canonical.
-
User is selected as notary again on the SMC in a different period or can withdraw his/her stake: the user can keep staking and voting on incoming collation headers and restart the process, or withdraw his/her stake and be deregistered from the SMC.
Now, we’ll explore our architecture and implementation in detail as part of the go-ethereum repository.
System Start and User Entrypoint
Our Ruby Release requires users to start a local geth node running a localized, private blockchain to deploy the SMC into. Users can spin up a notary client as a command line entrypoint into geth while the node is running as follows:
geth sharding --actor "notary" --datadir /path/to/your/datadir --password /path/to/your/password.txt --networkid 12345 --deposit
This will extract 1000ETH from the user's account balance and insert him/her into the SMC's notaries. Then, the program will listen for incoming block headers and notify the user when he/she has been selected as to vote on collations for a certain shard in a given period. Once you are selected, the sharding node will download collation information to check for data availability on vote on proposals that have been submitted via the addHeader function on the SMC.
Users can also run a proposer client that is tasked with processing transactions into collations and submitting them to the SMC via the addHeader function.
geth sharding --actor "proposer" --datadir /path/to/your/datadir --password /path/to/your/password.txt --networkid 12345
This client is tasked with processing pending transactions into blobs within collations by serializing data into collation bodies. It is responsible for submitting proposals (collation headers) to the SMC via the addHeader function.
The sharding node begins to work by its main loop, which involves the following steps:
-
Subscribe to incoming block headers: the client will begin by issuing a subscription over JSON-RPC for block headers from the running geth node.
-
Check shards for notary selection within LOOKEAD_PERIOD: on incoming headers, the client will interact with the SMC to check if the current user is an eligible notary for an upcoming period (only a few minutes notice)
-
If the notary is selected, check data availability for submitted collation headers: once a notary is selected, he/she has to download subimtted collation headers for the shard in a certain period and check for their data availability
-
The notary issues a vote: the notary votes on the available collation header that came first in the submissions.
-
Other notaries vote, period ends, and header is selected as canonical shard chain header: Once notaries vote, headers that received >=2/3 votes are selected as canonical
The Sharding Manager Contract
Our solidity implementation of the Sharding Manager Contract follows the reference spec outlined in ETHResearch's minimal sharding protocol
Our current solidity implementation includes all of these functions along with other utilities important for the our Ruby Release sharding scheme.
For more details on these methods, please refer to the Phase 1 spec as it details all important requirements and additional functions to be included in the production-ready SMC.
Notary Sampling
The probability of being selected as a notary on a particular shard is being heavily researched in the latest ETHResearch discussions. As specified in the Sharding FAQ by Vitalik, “if validators [collators] could choose, then attackers with small total stake could concentrate their stake onto one shard and attack it, thereby eliminating the system’s security.”
The idea is that notaries should not be able to figure out which shard they will become a notary of and during which period they will be assigned with anything more than a few minutes notice.
Ideally, we want notaries to shuffle across shards very rapidly and through a source of pseudorandomness built in-protocol.
Despite its benefits, random sampling does not help in a bribing, coordinated attack model. In Vitalik’s own words:
"Either the attacker can bribe the great majority of the sample to do as the attacker pleases, or the attacker controls a majority of the sample directly and can direct the sample to perform arbitrary actions at low cost (O(c) cost, to be precise). At that point, the attacker has the ability to conduct 51% attacks against that sample. The threat is further magnified because there is a risk of cross-shard contagion: if the attacker corrupts the state of a shard, the attacker can then start to send unlimited quantities of funds out to other shards and perform other cross-shard mischief. All in all, security in the bribing attacker or coordinated choice model is not much better than that of simply creating O(c) altcoins.”
However, this problem transcends the sharding scheme itself and goes into the broader problem of fraud detection, which we have yet to comprehensively address.
The Notary Client
One of the main running threads of our implementation is the notary client, which serves as a bridge between users staking their ETH to become notaries and the Sharding Manager Contract that verifies collation headers on the canonical chain.
When we launch the client, The instance connects to a running geth node via JSON-RPC and calls the deposit function on a deployed, Sharding Manager Contract to insert the user into a notary pool. Then, we subscribe for updates on incoming block headers and determine if the user is a notary on receiving each header. Once we are selected within a LOOKAHEAD_PERIOD, our client fetches data associated with submitted collation headers to that shard. The notary votes on the SMC, and if other notaries reach consensus, the collation is accepted as canonical.
Local Shard Storage
Local shard information is done through a key-value store used to store the mainchain information in the local data directory specified by the running geth node. Adding a collation to a shard will effectively modify this key-value store.
Work in progress.
The Proposer Client
In addition to launching a notary client, our system requires a user to concurrently launch a proposer client that is tasked with fetching pending tx’s from the network and creating collations that can be sent to the SMC.
This client connects via JSON-RPC to give the client the ability to call required functions on the SMC. The proposer is tasked with packaging pending transaction data into blobs and not executing these transactions. This is very important, we will not consider state execution until later phases of a sharding roadmap.
Then, the proposer node calls the addHeader function on the SMC by submitting this collation header. We’ll explore the structure of collation headers in this next section.
Collation Headers
Work in progress.
Peer Discovery and Shard Wire Protocol
Work in progress.
Protocol Modifications
Protocol Primitives: Collations, Blocks, Transactions, Accounts
(Outline the interfaces for each of these constructs, mention crucial changes in types or receiver methods in Go for each, mention transaction access lists)
Work in progress.
The EVM: What You Need to Know
As an important aside, we’ll take a brief detour into the EVM and what we need to understand before we modify it for a sharded blockchain. At its core, the functionality of the EVM optimizes for security and not for computational power with the following restrictions:
- Every single step must be paid for upfront with gas costs to prevent DDoS
- Programs can't interact with each other without a single byte array
- This also means programs can't access other programs' state
- Sandboxed Execution - the EVM can only modify its internal state and nothing else
- Deterministic execution guarantees
So what exactly is the EVM? The EVM was purposely designed to be a stack based machine with memory-byte arrays and key-value stores that are kept on a trie
- Every single keys and storage values are 32 bytes
- There are 100 total opcodes in the EVM
- The EVM comes with a temporary memory byte-array and storage trie to hold persistent memory.
Cryptographic operations are done using pre-compiled contracts. Aside from that, the EVM provides a bunch of blockchain access-level context that allows certain opcodes to fetch useful information from the external system. For example, LOG opcodes store useful information in the log bloom filter that can be synced with light clients. This can be used as a low-gas form of storage, since LOG does not modify the state.
Additionally, the EVM contains a call-depth limit such that recursive invocations or chains of calls will eventually halt, preventing a drastic use of resources.
It is important to note that the merkle root of an Ethereum account is updated any time an SSTORE opcode is executed successfully by a program on the EVM that results in a key or value changing in the state merklix (merkle radix) tree.
How is this relevant to sharding? It is important to note the importance of certain opcodes in our implementation and how we will need to introduce and modify several of them for both security and scalability considerations in a sharded chain.
Work in progress.
Sharding In-Practice
Use-Case Stories: Proposers
The primary purpose of proposers is to package transaction data into collations that can then be submitted to the SMC.
The primary incentive for proposers to generate these collations is to receive a payout to their coinbase address from transactions fees once these collations are added to a block in the canonical chain. This process, however, cannot occur until we have state execution in our protocol, so proposers will be running at a loss for our Phase 1 implementation.
Use-Case Stories: Notaries
The primary purpose of notaries is to use Proof of Stake and reach consensus on valid shard chains based on the collations they process and add to the Sharding Manager Contract. They have three primary things to do:
- They can deposit ETH into the SMC and become a notary. They then have to wait to be selected by the SMC on a particular period to vote on collation headers in the SMC.
- They download availability of collation headers submitted to their assigned shard in the period.
- They vote on available collation headers
Current Status
Currently, Prysmatic Labs is focusing its initial implementation around the logic of the notary and proposer clients, as well as shard state local storage and p2p networking. We have built the command line entrypoints as well as the minimum, required functions of the Sharding Manager Contract that is deployed to a local Ethereum blockchain instance. Our notary client is able to subscribe for block headers from the running Geth node and determine when we are selected as an eligible notary in a given period if we have deposited ETH into the contract.
You can track our progress, open issues, and projects in our repository here.
Security Considerations
Not Included in Ruby Release
We will not be considering data availability proofs (part of the stateless client model) as part of the ruby release we will not be implementing them as it just yet as they are an area of active research.
Bribing, Coordinated Attack Models
Work in progress.
Enforced Windback
When notaries are extending shard chains, it is critical that they are able to verify some of the collation headers in the immediate past for security purposes. There have already been instances where mining blindly has led to invalid transactions that forced Bitcoin to undergo a fork (See: BIP66 Incident).
This process of checking previous blocks is known as “windback”. In a post by Justin Drake on ETHResearch, he outlines that this is necessary for security, but is counterintuitive to the end-goal of scalability as this obviously imposes more computational and network constraints on nodes.
One way to enforce validity during the windback process is for nodes to produce zero-knowedge proofs of validity that can then be stored in collation headers for quick verification.
On the other hand, to enforce availability for the windback process, a possible approach is for nodes to produce “proofs of custody” in collation headers that prove the notary was in possession of the full data of a collation when produced. Drake proposes a constant time, non-interactive zkSNARK method for notaries to check these proofs of custody. In his construction, he mentions splitting up a collation body into “chunks” that are then mixed with the node's private key through a hashing scheme. The security in this relies in the idea that a node would not leak his/her private key without compromising him or herself, so it provides a succinct way of checking if the full data was available when a node processed the collation body and proof was created.
The Data Availability Problem
Introduction and Background
Work in progress.
On Uniquely Attributable Faults
Work in progress.
Erasure Codes
Work in progress.
Beyond Phase 1
Cross-Shard Communication
Receipts Method
Work in progress.
Merge Blocks
Work in progress.
Synchronous State Execution
Work in progress.
Transparent Sharding
One of the first question dApp developers ask about sharding is how much will they need to change their workflow and smart contract development to adopt the sharded blockchain scheme. An idea tangentially explored by Vitalik in his Sharding FAQ was the concept of “transparent sharding” which means that sharding will exist exclusively at the protocol layer and will not be exposed to developers. The Ethereum state system will continue to look as it currently does, but the protocol will have a built-in system that creates shards, balances state across shards, gets rid of shards that are too small, and more. This will all be done behind the scenes, allowing devs to continue their current workflow on Ethereum. This was only briefly mentioned, but will be critical to ensure a better user experience moving forward after security considerations are addressed.
Tightly-Coupled Sharding (Fork-Free Sharding)
A current problem with the scheme we are following for sharding is the reliance on two fork-choice rules. When we are reaching consensus on the best shard chain, we not only have to check for the longest canonical, main chain, but also the longest shard chain within this longest main chain. Fork-choice rules have long been an approach to solve the constraints that distributed systems impose on us due to factors outside of our control (Byzantine faults) and are the current standard in most public blockchains.
A problem that can occur with current distributed fork-choice ledgers is the possibility of choosing a wrong fork and continuing to do PoW on it, thereby wasting potential profits of mining on the canonical chain. Another current burden is the large amount of data that needs to be downloaded in order to validate which fork is potentially the best one to follow in any situation, opening up avenues for spam DDoS attacks.
Fortunately, there is a potential method of creating a fork-free sharding mechanism that relies on what we are currently implementing through the Sharding Manager Contract that has been explored by Justin Drake and Vitalik in this and this other post, respectively.
The current spec of the Sharding Manager Contract already does a canonical ordering of collation headers for us (i.e. we can track the timestamped logs of collation headers being added). Because the data for the SMC lives on the canonical main chain, we are able to easily extract an exact ordering and validity from headers added through the contract.
To add validity to our current SMC spec, Drake mentions that we can use a succinct zkSNARK in the collation root proving validity upon construction that can be checked directly by the addHeader function on the the SMC.
The other missing piece is the guarantee of data availability within collation headers submitted to the SMC which can once again be done through zero-knowledge proofs and erasure codes (See: The Data Availability Problem). By escalating this up to the SMC, we can ensure what Vitalik calls “tightly-coupled” sharding, in which case breaking a single shard would entail also breaking the progression of the canonical chain, enabling easier cross-shard communication due to having a single source of truth being the SMC and the associated collation headers it has processed. In Justin Drake’s words, “there is no fork-choice rule within the SMC”.
It is important to note that this “tightly coupled” sharding has been relegated to the latter phases of the roadmap.
Work in progress.
Active Questions and Research
Selecting Notaries Via Random Beacon Chains
In our current implementation for the Ruby Release, we are selecting notaries through a pseudorandom method built into the SMC directly. Inspired by dfinity's random beacon chains, the Ethereum Research team has been proposing better solutions that have faster finality guarantees. The random beacon chain would be in charge for pseudorandomly sampling notaries and would allow for cool stuff such as off-chain collation headers that were not possible before. Through this, no gas would need to be paid for including collation headers and we can achieve faster finality guarantees, making the system way better than before.
https://ethresear.ch/t/posw-random-beacon/1814/6
Leaderless Random Beacons
In the prevous research on random beacons, committees are able to generate random numbers if a certain number of participants participate correctly. This is similar to the random beacon used in Dfinity without the use of BLS threshold signatures. The scheme is separated into two separate sections.
In the first section, each participant is committed to a secret key and shares the resulting public key. In the second section, each participant will use their secret key to deterministically build a polynomial and that polynomial is used to to create n shares (where n is the size of the committee) which can then be encrypted with respect to the public keys and then shared publicly.
Then, in the resolution, all participants are then to reveal their private keys, once the key is revealed anyone can check if the participant committed correctly. We can define the random output as the sum of the private keys for which the participants committed correctly.
https://ethresear.ch/t/leaderless-k-of-n-random-beacon/2046/3
Torus-shaped Sharded P2P Network
One recommendation is using a Torus-shaped sharding network. In this paradigm, there would be a single network that all shards share rather than a network for each shard. Nodes would propagate messages to peers interested in neighboring shards. A node listening on shard 16 would relay messages for shards in range of 11 to 21 (i.e +/-5). Nodes that need to listen on multiple shards can quickly change shards to find peers that may relay necessary messages. A node could potentially have access to messages from all shards with only 10 distinct peers for a 100 shard network. At the same time, we're considering replacing DEVp2p with libp2p framework, which is actively maintained, proven to work with IPFS, and comes with client libraries for Go and Javascript. Active research is on going for moving Ethereum fron DEVp2p to libp2p. We are looking into how to map shards to libp2p and how to balance flood/gossipsub progagation vs active connections. Here is the current work of poc on gossiphub. It utilizies pubsub for propagating messages such as transactions, proposals and sharded collations.
https://ethresear.ch/t/torus-shaped-sharding-network/1720
Sparse Merkle Tree for State Storage
With a sharded network comes sharded state storage. State sync today is difficult for clients today. While the blockchain data stored on disk might use~80gb for a fast sync, less than 5gb of that disk is state data while state sync accounts for the majority of time spent syncing. As the state grows, this issue will also grow. We imagine that it might be difficult to sync effectively when there are 100 shards and 100 different state tries. One recommendation from the Ethereum Research team outlines using [sparse merkle trees].(https://www.links.org/files/RevocationTransparency.pdf)
https://ethresear.ch/t/data-availability-proof-friendly-state-tree-transitions/1453
Proof of Custody
A critique against the notary scheme currently followed in the minimal sharding protocol is the susceptibility of these agents towards the “validator’s dilemma”, wherein agents are incentivized to be “lazy” and trust the work of other validators when making coordinated decisions. Specifically, notaries are tasked with checking data availability of collation headers submitted to the SMC during their assigned period. This means notaries have to download headers via a shardp2p network and commit their votes after confirming availability. Proposers can try to game validators by publishing unavailable proposals and then challenging lazy validators to take their deposits. In order to prevent abuse of collation availability traps, the responsibility of notaries is extended to also provide a “Merkle root of a signature tree, where each signature in the signature tree is the signature of the corresponding chunk of the original collation data.” (ETHResearch) This means that at challenge time, notaries must have the fully available collation data in order to construct a signature tree of all its chunks.
https://ethresear.ch/t/extending-skin-in-the-game-of-notarization-with-proofs-of-custody/1639
Safe Notary Pool Sizes: RANDAO Exploration
When notary pool sizes are too small a few things can happen: A small pool would result in the notary requiring a large amount of bandwidth. The amount of bandwidth required by each notary is inversely proportional to the size of the pool, so in order to be sufficiently decentralized the notary pool should be large enough so that the bandwidth required should be manageable with poor internet connection. Secondly the notary pool size has a direct effect on the capital requirements in order to take over notarisation and revert/censor transactions. An acceptable notary pool size would be one that required a minimum acceptable capital threshold for a takeover of the chain. In Vitalik’s RANDAO analysis he looked at how vulnerable the RANDAO chain was comparatively to a POW(Proof of Work) chain. The result of the exercise was that an attacker with a 40% of stake on the RANDAO chain can effectively revert transactions; to achieve the same result on a POW chain they would require 50% of the hashpower. On the other hand if the chain utilised a 2/2 notarization committee, the attacker would need to up their stake to 46% on the chain to be able to effectively censor transactions.
https://ethresear.ch/t/safe-notary-pool-size/1728
Cross Links Between Shard Chain and Main Chain
For synchronizing cross shard chain communications, we are researching how to properly link between the shard chain and the beacon chain. In order to accomplish this, a randomly sampled committee will vote to approve a collation in a sharded chain per period and per shard. As Vitalik wrote, there are two ways create cross links between main shard and shards. On-chain aggregation and off-chain aggregation. For on-chain aggregation, the state of beacon chain will keep track of the randomly sampled committee as validators. Each validator can make one vote casper FFG style, the vote will also contain cross-link of that committee. For off-chain aggregation, every beacon chain block creator will choose one CAS to link the sharded chain to main chain. Off chain aggregation mechanisms have benefits as there is no need for the beacon chain to track of vote counts.
https://ethresear.ch/t/extending-minimal-sharding-with-cross-links/1989/8 https://ethresear.ch/t/two-ways-to-do-cross-links/2074/2
Fixed ETH Deposit Size for Notaries
A notary must submit a deposit to the Sharding Manager Contract in order to get randomly selected to vote on a block. A fixed size deposit is good for making the random selection convenient and work well with slashing, as it can always destroy at least a minimum amount of ether. However, a fixed-size deposit does not do well with rewards and penalties. An alternative solution is to design incentive system where rewards and penalties are tracked in a separate variable, and when the final balance when the withdrawal penalties minus rewards reach a threshold, the notary can be voted out. Such a design might ignore an important function which is to reduce the influence of notaries that are offline. In Casper FFG, if more than 1/3 of validators to offline around same time, the deposits will begin to leak quickly. This is called quadratic leak.
https://ethresear.ch/t/fixed-size-deposits-and-rewards-penalties-quad-leak/2073/7
Community Updates and Contributions
Excited by our work and want to get involved in building out our sharding releases? We created this document as a single source of reference for all things related to sharding Ethereum, and we need as much help as we can get!
You can explore our Current Projects in-the works for the Ruby release. Each of the project boards contain a full collection of open and closed issues relevant to the different parts of our first implementation that we use to track our open source progress. Feel free to fork our repo and start creating PR’s after assigning yourself to an issue of interest. We are always chatting on Gitter, so drop us a line there if you want to get more involved or have any questions on our implementation!
Contribution Steps
- Create a folder in your
$GOPATHand navigate to itmkdir -p $GOPATH/src/github.com/ethereum && cd $GOPATH/src/github.com/ethereum - Clone our repository as
go-ethereum,git clone https://github.com/prysmaticlabs/geth-sharding ./go-ethereum - Fork the
go-ethereumrepository on Github: https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum - Add a remote to your fork `git remote add YOURNAME https://github.com/YOURNAME/go-ethereum
Now you should have a remote pointing to the origin repo (geth-sharding) and to your forked, go-ethereum repo on Github. To commit changes and start a Pull Request, our workflow is as follows:
- Create a new branch with a clear feature name such as
git checkout -b collations-pool - Issue changes with clear commit messages
- Push to your remote
git push YOURNAME collations-pool - Go to the geth-sharding repository on Github and start a PR comparing
geth-sharding:masterwithgo-ethereum:collations-pool(your fork on your profile). - Add a clear PR title along with a description of what this PR encompasses, when it can be closed, and what you are currently working on. Github markdown checklists work great for this.
Acknowledgements
A special thanks for entire Prysmatic Labs team for helping put this together and to Ethereum Research (Hsiao-Wei Wang) for the help and guidance in our approach.
References
Ethereum Sharding and Finality - Hsiao-Wei Wang
Data Availability and Erasure Coding
Proof of Visibility for Data Availability
Enforcing Windback and Proof of Custody
State Execution Scalability and Cost Under DDoS Attacks
Guaranteed Collation Subsidies
Fork Choice Rule for Collation Proposals
Model for Phase 4 Tightly-Coupled Sharding
History, State, and Asynchronous Accumulators in the Stateless Model
Data Availability Proof-friendly State Tree Transitions
General Framework of Overhead and Finality Time in Sharding
Fixed Size Deposits and Rewards Penalties Quadleak