Commit Graph

3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Mac L
969d12dc6f Use E for EthSpec globally (#5264)
* Use `E` for `EthSpec` globally

* Fix tests

* Merge branch 'unstable' into e-ethspec

* Merge branch 'unstable' into e-ethspec

# Conflicts:
#	beacon_node/execution_layer/src/engine_api.rs
#	beacon_node/execution_layer/src/engine_api/http.rs
#	beacon_node/execution_layer/src/engine_api/json_structures.rs
#	beacon_node/execution_layer/src/test_utils/handle_rpc.rs
#	beacon_node/store/src/partial_beacon_state.rs
#	consensus/types/src/beacon_block.rs
#	consensus/types/src/beacon_block_body.rs
#	consensus/types/src/beacon_state.rs
#	consensus/types/src/config_and_preset.rs
#	consensus/types/src/execution_payload.rs
#	consensus/types/src/execution_payload_header.rs
#	consensus/types/src/light_client_optimistic_update.rs
#	consensus/types/src/payload.rs
#	lcli/src/parse_ssz.rs
2024-04-02 15:12:25 +00:00
Paul Hauner
1f8c17b530 Fork choice modifications and cleanup (#3962)
## Issue Addressed

NA

## Proposed Changes

- Implements https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3290/
- Bumps `ef-tests` to [v1.3.0-rc.4](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-spec-tests/releases/tag/v1.3.0-rc.4).

The `CountRealizedFull` concept has been removed and the `--count-unrealized-full` and `--count-unrealized` BN flags now do nothing but log a `WARN` when used.

## Database Migration Debt

This PR removes the `best_justified_checkpoint` from fork choice. This field is persisted on-disk and the correct way to go about this would be to make a DB migration to remove the field. However, in this PR I've simply stubbed out the value with a junk value. I've taken this approach because if we're going to do a DB migration I'd love to remove the `Option`s around the justified and finalized checkpoints on `ProtoNode` whilst we're at it. Those options were added in #2822 which was included in Lighthouse v2.1.0. The options were only put there to handle the migration and they've been set to `Some` ever since v2.1.0. There's no reason to keep them as options anymore.

I started adding the DB migration to this branch but I started to feel like I was bloating this rather critical PR with nice-to-haves. I've kept the partially-complete migration [over in my repo](https://github.com/paulhauner/lighthouse/tree/fc-pr-18-migration) so we can pick it up after this PR is merged.
2023-03-21 07:34:41 +00:00
Michael Sproul
775d222299 Enable proposer boost re-orging (#2860)
## Proposed Changes

With proposer boosting implemented (#2822) we have an opportunity to re-org out late blocks.

This PR adds three flags to the BN to control this behaviour:

* `--disable-proposer-reorgs`: turn aggressive re-orging off (it's on by default).
* `--proposer-reorg-threshold N`: attempt to orphan blocks with less than N% of the committee vote. If this parameter isn't set then N defaults to 20% when the feature is enabled.
* `--proposer-reorg-epochs-since-finalization N`: only attempt to re-org late blocks when the number of epochs since finalization is less than or equal to N. The default is 2 epochs, meaning re-orgs will only be attempted when the chain is finalizing optimally.

For safety Lighthouse will only attempt a re-org under very specific conditions:

1. The block being proposed is 1 slot after the canonical head, and the canonical head is 1 slot after its parent. i.e. at slot `n + 1` rather than building on the block from slot `n` we build on the block from slot `n - 1`.
2. The current canonical head received less than N% of the committee vote. N should be set depending on the proposer boost fraction itself, the fraction of the network that is believed to be applying it, and the size of the largest entity that could be hoarding votes.
3. The current canonical head arrived after the attestation deadline from our perspective. This condition was only added to support suppression of forkchoiceUpdated messages, but makes intuitive sense.
4. The block is being proposed in the first 2 seconds of the slot. This gives it time to propagate and receive the proposer boost.


## Additional Info

For the initial idea and background, see: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2353#issuecomment-950238004

There is also a specification for this feature here: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3034

Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: pawan <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
2022-12-13 09:57:26 +00:00