Note: This post is deliberately high level. It doesn’t attempt to be an economic proof or go into the gory details of exactly how the difficulty adjustment works. The aim is just to see the high level effects of how the system pans out without getting lost in the nitty gritty details of what is ultimately a very complex system.
If you’re getting into staking ETH on the beacon chain, it’s important to know what you’re actually signing up for. There’s lots of articles about how easy it is and how awesome, intelligent and good looking stakers are, so here’s a few hard truths you should make sure you’re ok with…
Most people know this stuff so I’m just going to skim over it.
Through the beacon chain testnets people have been gradually developing better ways to evaluate how well their validators are working. Jim McDonald made a big leap forward defining attestation effectiveness which focuses on the inclusion distance for attestations. That revealed a bunch of opportunities for clients to improve the attestation inclusion distance and attestation effectiveness scores improved quite dramatically until now scores are generally at or close to 100% pretty consistently.
For the beacon chain MainNet, I’ve setup an instance of chaind – a handle little utility that connects to a beacon node (like Teku) and dumps out the chain data to a database so its easy to run various queries against. While you can do this with various REST API queries and custom code, having it all accessible by SQL makes ad-hoc queries a lot easier and lets you add it as a datasource for Grafana to display lots of powerful metrics.
Teku requires a password file for each individual keystore, with the same relative path as the keystore but a .txtextension. If all the keystores have the same password, you can copy a single password.txtfile for all the keystores with the command below:
for keyFile in keys/*; do cp password.txt "secrets/$(echo "$keyFile" | sed -e 's/keys\/\(.*\)\.json/\1/').txt"; done
Note that the keys directory is specified twice in that command so if the keys are in a different directory name, make sure to update both places.
Last week I put together a video explaining attestation inclusion and delays in ETH2. This is one of the keys to maximising your validator rewards and the health of the network.
We run a bunch of hosts on EC2 and while most just have the default DNS name, they all have a Name tag to identify their purpose. While there’s lots of automation setup via ansible, it is often still necessary to SSH directly into a particular box, especially while debugging issues.
I find it annoying to have to go log into the AWS console just to find the DNS name of the particular box I want so I’ve written a little script that searches for hosts based on the name tag and can then SSH into them.
It’s like something out of a Sherlock novel – the doors are all locked, windows barred and yet somehow the jewels have been stolen. Or in this case, every block created forms a single chain and yet somehow the validator client has wound up on the wrong fork. Fortunately Sherlock, or rather Cem Ozer, was on the case. This is the story behind those very annoying “Produced invalid attestation” errors that Teku would sometimes generate.
Stumbled across ArchUnit today which looks useful. In particular I think there’s power in being able to assert that certain packages really never depend on each other. Although gradle/maven modules would probably be a better level to assert at. It’s depressingly common for code bases to be split into separate modules with the intention that they be a clear separation of concerns only for a web of dependencies to be added because someone wanted to reuse some class and didn’t refactor to a common module.
Occasionally the term “weak subjectivity period” pops up in Eth2 discussions. It’s a weird concept that you can usually just watch fly by and not miss too much. But when you’re talking about how to sync an existing Eth2 chain it becomes quite important. Probably the best resource for it is Vitalik’s post: Proof of Stake: How I Learned to Love Weak Subjectivity I’ve struggled to get my head around it and why it matters so am writing up my current understanding. There is almost certainly at least one mistake in here somewhere…
In Ethereum, there are often short forks near the head of the chain because two miners found the PoW solution for new blocks at around the same time. Only one of those chains will ultimately wind up being considered the canonical chain and any blocks from non-canonical chains wind up having no effect on the state. Non-canonical blocks may wind up being added as ommers in future blocks, but everything in this article applies regardless of whether that happens.
One subtle detail in the way Ethereum works is that there is a difference between Ommers and Non-Canonical Blocks. It’s common for people to use the term Ommer for both of these and most of the time the difference doesn’t matter but sometimes it does.
So what is a non-canonical block? Non-canonical blocks are ones which a client imports but which don’t wind up on the canonical chain. Maybe they were on the canonical chain for a while and then a re-org switched to a different chain or maybe they were imported to a fork and spent their entire life languishing there. Either way, they don’t form part of the current consensus chain and have absolutely no effect on the world state. It’s like their transactions have never been executed and no one gets any form of miner reward for them. Non-canonical blocks must be entirely valid blocks that could form part of the canonical chain, but weren’t because we found a better chain.