9.6 KiB
Multisig Rotation
Substrate is expected to determine when a new validator set instance will be created, and with it, a new multisig. Upon the successful creation of a new multisig, as determined by the new multisig setting their key pair on Substrate, rotation begins.
Timeline
The following timeline is established:
-
The new multisig is created, and has its keys set on Serai. Once the next
Batch
with a new external network block is published, its block becomes the "queue block". The new multisig is set to activate at the "queue block", plusCONFIRMATIONS
blocks (the "activation block").We don't use the last
Batch
's external network block, as thatBatch
may be older thanCONFIRMATIONS
blocks. Any yet-to-be-included-and-finalizedBatch
will be withinCONFIRMATIONS
blocks of what any processor has scanned however, as it'll wait for inclusion and finalization before continuing scanning. -
Once the "activation block" itself has been finalized on Serai, UIs should start exclusively using the new multisig. If the "activation block" isn't finalized within
2 * CONFIRMATIONS
blocks, UIs should stop making transactions to any multisig on that network.Waiting for Serai's finalization prevents a UI from using an unfinalized "activation block" before a re-organization to a shorter chain. If a transaction to Serai was carried from the unfinalized "activation block" to the shorter chain, it'd no longer be after the "activation block" and accordingly would be ignored.
We could not wait for Serai to finalize the block, yet instead wait for the block to have
CONFIRMATIONS
confirmations. This would prevent needing to wait for an indeterminate amount of time for Serai to finalize the "activation block", with the knowledge it should be finalized. Doing so would open UIs to eclipse attacks, where they live on an alternate chain where a possible "activation block" is finalized, yet Serai finalizes a distinct "activation block". If the alternate chain was longer than the finalized chain, the above issue would be reopened.The reason for UIs stopping under abnormal behavior is as follows. Given a sufficiently delayed
Batch
for the "activation block", UIs will use the old multisig past the point it will be deprecated. Accordingly, UIs must realize whenBatch
s are so delayed and continued transactions are a risk. While2 * CONFIRMATIONS
is presumably well within the 6 hour period (defined below), that period exists for low-fee transactions at time of congestion. It does not exist for UIs with old state, though it can be used to compensate for them (reducing the tolerance for inclusion delays).2 * CONFIRMATIONS
is before the 6 hour period is enacted, preserving the tolerance for inclusion delays, yet still should only happen under highly abnormal circumstances.In order to minimize the time it takes for "activation block" to be finalized, a
Batch
will always be created for it, regardless of it would otherwise have aBatch
created. -
The prior multisig continues handling
Batch
s andBurn
s forCONFIRMATIONS
blocks, plus 10 minutes, after the "activation block".The first
CONFIRMATIONS
blocks is due to the fact the new multisig shouldn't actually be sent coins during this period, making it irrelevant. If coins are prematurely sent to the new multisig, they're artificially delayed until the end of theCONFIRMATIONS
blocks plus 10 minutes period. This prevents an adversary from minting Serai tokens using coins in the new multisig, yet then burning them to drain the prior multisig, creating a lack of liquidity for several blocks.The reason for the 10 minutes is to provide grace to honest UIs. Since UIs will wait until Serai confirms the "activation block" for keys before sending to them, which will take
CONFIRMATIONS
blocks plus some latency, UIs would make transactions to the prior multisig past the end of this period if it wasCONFIRMATIONS
alone. Since the next period isCONFIRMATIONS
blocks, which is how long transactions take to confirm, transactions made past the end of this period would only received after the next period. After the next period, the prior multisig adds fees and a delay to all received funds (as it forwards the funds from itself to the new multisig). The 10 minutes provides grace for latency.The 10 minutes is a delay on anyone who immediately transitions to the new multisig, in a no latency environment, yet the delay is preferable to fees from forwarding. It also should be less than 10 minutes thanks to various latencies.
-
The prior multisig continues handling
Batch
s andBurn
s for anotherCONFIRMATIONS
blocks.This is for two reasons:
- Coins sent to the new multisig still need time to gain sufficient confirmations.
- All outputs belonging to the prior multisig should become available within
CONFIRMATIONS
blocks.
All
Burn
s handled during this period should use the new multisig for the change address. This should effect a transfer of most outputs.With the expected transfer of most outputs, and the new multisig receiving new external transactions, the new multisig takes the responsibility of signing all unhandled and newly emitted
Burn
s. -
For the next 6 hours, all non-
Branch
outputs received are immediately forwarded to the new multisig. Only external transactions to the new multisig are included inBatch
s.The new multisig infers the
InInstruction
, and refund address, for forwardedExternal
outputs via reading what they were for the originalExternal
output.Alternatively, the
InInstruction
, with refund address explicitly included, could be included in the forwarding transaction. This may fail if theInInstruction
omitted the refund address and is too large to fit in a transaction with one explicitly included. On such failure, the refund would be immediately issued instead. -
Once the 6 hour period has expired, the prior multisig stops handling outputs it didn't itself create. Any remaining
Eventuality
s are completed, and any available/freshly available outputs are forwarded (creating newEventuality
s which also need to successfully resolve).Once all the 6 hour period has expired, no
Eventuality
s remain, and all outputs are forwarded, the multisig publishes a finalBatch
of the first block, plusCONFIRMATIONS
, which met these conditions, regardless of if it would've otherwise had aBatch
. No further actions by it, nor its validators, are expected (unless, of course, those validators remain present in the new multisig). -
The new multisig confirms all transactions from all prior multisigs were made as expected, including the reported
Batch
s.Unfortunately, we cannot solely check the immediately prior multisig due to the ability for two sequential malicious multisigs to steal. If multisig
n - 2
only transfers a fraction of its coins to multisign - 1
, multisign - 1
can 'honestly' operate on the dishonest state it was given, laundering it. This would let multisign - 1
forward the results of its as-expected operations from a dishonest starting point to the new multisig, and multisign
would attest to multisign - 1
's expected (and therefore presumed honest) operations, assuming liability. This would cause an honest multisig to face full liability for the invalid state, causing it to be fully slashed (as needed to reacquire any lost coins).This would appear short-circuitable if multisig
n - 1
transfers coins exceeding the relevant Serai tokens' supply. Serai never expects to operate in an over-solvent state, yet balance should trend upwards due to a flat fee applied to each received output (preventing a griefing attack). Any balance greater than the tokens' supply may have had funds skimmed off the top, yet they'd still guarantee the solvency of Serai without any additional fees passed to users. Unfortunately, due to the requirement to verify theBatch
s published (as else the Serai tokens' supply may be manipulated), this cannot actually be achieved (at least, not without a ZK proof the publishedBatch
s were correct). -
The new multisig publishes the next
Batch
, signifying the accepting of full responsibilities and a successful close of the prior multisig.
Latency and Fees
Slightly before the end of step 3, the new multisig should start receiving new
external outputs. These won't be confirmed for another CONFIRMATIONS
blocks,
and the new multisig won't start handling Burn
s for another CONFIRMATIONS
blocks plus 10 minutes. Accordingly, the new multisig should only become
responsible for Burn
s shortly after it has taken ownership of the stream of
newly received coins.
Before it takes responsibility, it also should've been transferred all internal
outputs under the standard scheduling flow. Any delayed outputs will be
immediately forwarded, and external stragglers are only reported to Serai once
sufficiently confirmed in the new multisig. Accordingly, liquidity should avoid
fragmentation during rotation. The only latency should be on the 10 minutes
present, and on delayed outputs, which should've been immediately usable, having
to wait another CONFIRMATIONS
blocks to be confirmed once forwarded.
Immediate forwarding does unfortunately prevent batching inputs to reduce fees. Given immediate forwarding only applies to latent outputs, considered exceptional, and the protocol's fee handling ensures solvency, this is accepted.