## Issue Addressed
Update Information in Lighthouse Book
## Proposed Changes
- move Validator Graffiti from Advanced Usage to Validator Management
- update API response and command
- some items that aren't too sure I put it in comment, which can be seen in raw/review format but not live
## Additional Info
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: chonghe <44791194+chong-he@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue Addressed
Update Lighthouse book to include latest information especially after Capella upgrade
## Proposed Changes
Notable changes:
- Combine Sec 4.1 & 6.1 into Sec 4, because Sec 6.1 is importing validator key which is a required step when want to run a validator
- Combine Sec 5.1 & 5.2 with Sec 5, and move Sec 5 to under Sec 9
- Added partial withdrawals in Sec 6
## Additional Info
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: chonghe <tanck2005@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
Related: #3550
Remove references to the `--strict-fee-recipient` flag in docs. The flag will cause missed proposals prior to the merge transition.
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <sean@sigmaprime.io>
## Proposed Changes
Address a few shortcomings of the book noticed by users:
- Remove description of redundant execution nodes
- Use an Infura eth1 node rather than an eth2 node in the merge migration example
- Add an example of the fee recipient address format (we support addresses without the 0x prefix, but 0x prefixed feels more canonical).
- Clarify that Windows support is no longer beta
- Add a link to the MSRV to the build-from-source instructions
## Proposed Changes
Update the merge migration docs to encourage updating mainnet configs _now_!
The docs are also updated to recommend _against_ `--suggested-fee-recipient` on the beacon node (https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/3432).
Additionally the `--help` for the CLI is updated to match with a few small semantic changes:
- `--execution-jwt` is no longer allowed without `--execution-endpoint`. We've ended up without a default for `--execution-endpoint`, so I think that's fine.
- The flags related to the JWT are only allowed if `--execution-jwt` is provided.
## Issue Addressed
Resolves#3424
## Proposed Changes
This PR expands the merge migration docs to include (hopefully) clearer guidance on the steps required. It's inspired by @winksaville's work in #3426 but takes a more drastic approach to rewriting large sections.
* Add a prominent _When?_ section
* Add links to execution engine configuration guides
* Add links to community guides
* Fix the location of the _Strict fee recipient_ section
## Issue Addressed
https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/3091
Extends https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/3062, adding pre-bellatrix block support on blinded endpoints and allowing the normal proposal flow (local payload construction) on blinded endpoints. This resulted in better fallback logic because the VC will not have to switch endpoints on failure in the BN <> Builder API, the BN can just fallback immediately and without repeating block processing that it shouldn't need to. We can also keep VC fallback from the VC<>BN API's blinded endpoint to full endpoint.
## Proposed Changes
- Pre-bellatrix blocks on blinded endpoints
- Add a new `PayloadCache` to the execution layer
- Better fallback-from-builder logic
## Todos
- [x] Remove VC transition logic
- [x] Add logic to only enable builder flow after Merge transition finalization
- [x] Tests
- [x] Fix metrics
- [x] Rustdocs
Co-authored-by: Mac L <mjladson@pm.me>
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <sean@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
Resolves#3267Resolves#3156
## Proposed Changes
- Move the log for fee recipient checks from proposer cache insertion into block proposal so we are directly checking what we get from the EE
- Only log when there is a discrepancy with the local EE, not when using the builder API. In the `builder-api` branch there is an `info` log when there is a discrepancy, I think it is more likely there will be a difference in fee recipient with the builder api because proposer payments might be made via a transaction in the block. Not really sure what patterns will become commong.
- Upgrade the log from a `warn` to an `error` - not actually sure which we want, but I think this is worth an error because the local EE with default transaction ordering I think should pretty much always use the provided fee recipient
- add a `strict-fee-recipient` flag to the VC so we only sign blocks with matching fee recipients. Falls back from the builder API to the local API if there is a discrepancy .
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <sean@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
* #3173
## Proposed Changes
Moved all `fee_recipient_file` related logic inside the `ValidatorStore` as it makes more sense to have this all together there. I tested this with the validators I have on `mainnet-shadow-fork-5` and everything appeared to work well. Only technicality is that I can't get the method to return `401` when the authorization header is not specified (it returns `400` instead). Fixing this is probably quite difficult given that none of `warp`'s rejections have code `401`.. I don't really think this matters too much though as long as it fails.
## Issue Addressed
No issue
## Proposed Changes
Correct typos in book
## Additional Info
Nothing to add
Co-authored-by: Emilia Hane <58548332+emhane@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue Addressed
#2883
## Proposed Changes
* Added `suggested-fee-recipient` & `suggested-fee-recipient-file` flags to validator client (similar to graffiti / graffiti-file implementation).
* Added proposer preparation service to VC, which sends the fee-recipient of all known validators to the BN via [/eth/v1/validator/prepare_beacon_proposer](https://github.com/ethereum/beacon-APIs/pull/178) api once per slot
* Added [/eth/v1/validator/prepare_beacon_proposer](https://github.com/ethereum/beacon-APIs/pull/178) api endpoint and preparation data caching
* Added cleanup routine to remove cached proposer preparations when not updated for 2 epochs
## Additional Info
Changed the Implementation following the discussion in #2883.
Co-authored-by: pk910 <philipp@pk910.de>
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
Co-authored-by: Philipp K <philipp@pk910.de>
