Skip to content
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

Fork choice specs and implementation issues: attestations #192

Open
ericsson49 opened this issue Sep 17, 2019 · 0 comments
Open

Fork choice specs and implementation issues: attestations #192

ericsson49 opened this issue Sep 17, 2019 · 0 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested spec Changes related to spec

Comments

@ericsson49
Copy link
Contributor

List of differences, that I found, between fork choice/attestation spec and our implementation. This doesn't necessarily mean it's a bug.

1 Attestations are delayed until referenced block arrives, but not delayed until a proper slot starts.
Spec says

# Attestations cannot be from future epochs. If they are, delay consideration until the epoch arrives

And also

# Attestations can only affect the fork choice of subsequent slots.
# Delay consideration in the fork choice until their slot is in the past.

2 Time checks are different

As written above, the spec assumes the epoch should arrive and a consequent slot should start. However, current Harmony implementation uses different checks regarding the time (see TimeFramFilter).

3 Checks are more restrictive in general

That partially seems to be the spec problem, but in general attestation assertions that are verified by Harmony implementation differ from the specification and they are more restrictive (ignoring the time issue above). E.g. a proper attestation according to fork choice spec may be rejected by Harmony. However, it's likely won't be included in the chain, because of process_attestation checks.
Still, according to the fork choice spec it should (or may) affect LMD GHOST decisions.

A similar problem is discussed here ethereum/consensus-specs#1406

@ericsson49 ericsson49 added question Further information is requested spec Changes related to spec labels Sep 17, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested spec Changes related to spec
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant