From 94a98312bd5cd0a51ca0c67641c609b42b1b41e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: bkchr Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:50:02 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] deploy: 049a0351b38a25c94ac92475ceaa32f82212cd62 --- 404.html | 2 +- approved/0001-agile-coretime.html | 2 +- approved/0005-coretime-interface.html | 2 +- approved/0007-system-collator-selection.html | 2 +- approved/0008-parachain-bootnodes-dht.html | 2 +- approved/0010-burn-coretime-revenue.html | 2 +- ...12-process-for-adding-new-collectives.html | 2 +- ...uilder-and-core-runtime-apis-for-mbms.html | 2 +- ...rove-locking-mechanism-for-parachains.html | 2 +- approved/0022-adopt-encointer-runtime.html | 2 +- approved/0032-minimal-relay.html | 2 +- approved/0042-extrinsics-state-version.html | 2 +- .../0043-storage-proof-size-hostfunction.html | 2 +- approved/0045-nft-deposits-asset-hub.html | 2 +- ...047-assignment-of-availability-chunks.html | 2 +- approved/0050-fellowship-salaries.html | 2 +- ...0056-one-transaction-per-notification.html | 2 +- .../0059-nodes-capabilities-discovery.html | 2 +- approved/0078-merkleized-metadata.html | 2 +- index.html | 2 +- introduction.html | 2 +- print.html | 826 +++++++----------- ...04-remove-unnecessary-allocator-usage.html | 6 +- .../0066-add-smartcontracts-to-assethub.html | 426 --------- proposed/0074-stateful-multisig-pallet.html | 6 +- ...gth-of-identity-pgp-fingerprint-value.html | 2 +- ...-general-transaction-extrinsic-format.html | 2 +- searchindex.js | 2 +- searchindex.json | 2 +- ...namic-pricing-for-bulk-coretime-sales.html | 2 +- ...09-improved-net-light-client-requests.html | 2 +- stale/0015-market-design-revisit.html | 2 +- ...irmation-period-duration-modification.html | 2 +- stale/0026-sassafras-consensus.html | 2 +- ...-absolute-location-account-derivation.html | 2 +- ...ction-voting-delegation-modifications.html | 2 +- stale/0044-rent-based-registration.html | 2 +- stale/0048-session-keys-runtime-api.html | 2 +- stale/0054-remove-heap-pages.html | 2 +- stale/0070-x-track-kusamanetwork.html | 2 +- stale/0073-referedum-deposit-track.html | 2 +- ...ax-length-of-identity-raw-data-values.html | 2 +- 42 files changed, 358 insertions(+), 982 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 proposed/0066-add-smartcontracts-to-assethub.html diff --git a/404.html b/404.html index daf92b1..1afdeb7 100644 --- a/404.html +++ b/404.html @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0001-agile-coretime.html b/approved/0001-agile-coretime.html index dbeb39c..5e1ceac 100644 --- a/approved/0001-agile-coretime.html +++ b/approved/0001-agile-coretime.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0005-coretime-interface.html b/approved/0005-coretime-interface.html index 1dff5e3..a1aca6a 100644 --- a/approved/0005-coretime-interface.html +++ b/approved/0005-coretime-interface.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0007-system-collator-selection.html b/approved/0007-system-collator-selection.html index ec2aae0..f9cb1ba 100644 --- a/approved/0007-system-collator-selection.html +++ b/approved/0007-system-collator-selection.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0008-parachain-bootnodes-dht.html b/approved/0008-parachain-bootnodes-dht.html index 3298d4f..6c27132 100644 --- a/approved/0008-parachain-bootnodes-dht.html +++ b/approved/0008-parachain-bootnodes-dht.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0010-burn-coretime-revenue.html b/approved/0010-burn-coretime-revenue.html index 3830cdd..ac72f8f 100644 --- a/approved/0010-burn-coretime-revenue.html +++ b/approved/0010-burn-coretime-revenue.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0012-process-for-adding-new-collectives.html b/approved/0012-process-for-adding-new-collectives.html index 21d4c87..fee828e 100644 --- a/approved/0012-process-for-adding-new-collectives.html +++ b/approved/0012-process-for-adding-new-collectives.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0013-prepare-blockbuilder-and-core-runtime-apis-for-mbms.html b/approved/0013-prepare-blockbuilder-and-core-runtime-apis-for-mbms.html index 7093a45..524b801 100644 --- a/approved/0013-prepare-blockbuilder-and-core-runtime-apis-for-mbms.html +++ b/approved/0013-prepare-blockbuilder-and-core-runtime-apis-for-mbms.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0014-improve-locking-mechanism-for-parachains.html b/approved/0014-improve-locking-mechanism-for-parachains.html index e056f3f..7f06220 100644 --- a/approved/0014-improve-locking-mechanism-for-parachains.html +++ b/approved/0014-improve-locking-mechanism-for-parachains.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0022-adopt-encointer-runtime.html b/approved/0022-adopt-encointer-runtime.html index 74ae919..32bd073 100644 --- a/approved/0022-adopt-encointer-runtime.html +++ b/approved/0022-adopt-encointer-runtime.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0032-minimal-relay.html b/approved/0032-minimal-relay.html index c1be4a8..f30d708 100644 --- a/approved/0032-minimal-relay.html +++ b/approved/0032-minimal-relay.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0042-extrinsics-state-version.html b/approved/0042-extrinsics-state-version.html index adcfaf1..34cd1f3 100644 --- a/approved/0042-extrinsics-state-version.html +++ b/approved/0042-extrinsics-state-version.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0043-storage-proof-size-hostfunction.html b/approved/0043-storage-proof-size-hostfunction.html index 3edf613..43495ed 100644 --- a/approved/0043-storage-proof-size-hostfunction.html +++ b/approved/0043-storage-proof-size-hostfunction.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0045-nft-deposits-asset-hub.html b/approved/0045-nft-deposits-asset-hub.html index 7fbee1e..d546d70 100644 --- a/approved/0045-nft-deposits-asset-hub.html +++ b/approved/0045-nft-deposits-asset-hub.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0047-assignment-of-availability-chunks.html b/approved/0047-assignment-of-availability-chunks.html index fdd8c16..e28cd98 100644 --- a/approved/0047-assignment-of-availability-chunks.html +++ b/approved/0047-assignment-of-availability-chunks.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0050-fellowship-salaries.html b/approved/0050-fellowship-salaries.html index 6e483d1..62bf1d7 100644 --- a/approved/0050-fellowship-salaries.html +++ b/approved/0050-fellowship-salaries.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0056-one-transaction-per-notification.html b/approved/0056-one-transaction-per-notification.html index c9fc827..efc9ef2 100644 --- a/approved/0056-one-transaction-per-notification.html +++ b/approved/0056-one-transaction-per-notification.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0059-nodes-capabilities-discovery.html b/approved/0059-nodes-capabilities-discovery.html index 4de6fa7..8048fa7 100644 --- a/approved/0059-nodes-capabilities-discovery.html +++ b/approved/0059-nodes-capabilities-discovery.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/approved/0078-merkleized-metadata.html b/approved/0078-merkleized-metadata.html index 7ece31c..e7eff0f 100644 --- a/approved/0078-merkleized-metadata.html +++ b/approved/0078-merkleized-metadata.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index 2df1a53..09112df 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/introduction.html b/introduction.html index 2df1a53..09112df 100644 --- a/introduction.html +++ b/introduction.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ diff --git a/print.html b/print.html index 0a1f005..7a3f5cf 100644 --- a/print.html +++ b/print.html @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ @@ -444,204 +444,6 @@ The following other host functions are similarly also considered deprecated:

Future Possibilities

After this RFC, we can remove from the source code of the host the allocator altogether in a future version, by removing support for all the deprecated host functions. This would remove the possibility to synchronize older blocks, which is probably controversial and requires a some preparations that are out of scope of this RFC.

-

(source)

-

Table of Contents

- -

RFC-0066: Add EVM+ink! Contracts Pallets to Asset Hub for Polkadot

-
- - - -
Start Date14 January 2024
DescriptionA proposal to add EVM+ink! Contracts to Asset Hub for Polkadot to support Polkadot Rollups and larger numbers of EVM/Coreplay smart contract developers and their users on Polkadot Rollups and AssetHub for Polkadot.
AuthorsSourabh Niyogi
-
-

Summary

-

This RFC proposes to add the two dominant smart contract programming languages in the Polkadot ecosystem to AssetHub: -EVM + ink!/Coreplay. The objective is to increase DOT Revenue by making AssetHub accessible to -(1) Polkadot Rollups; -(2) EVM smart contract programmers; -(3) Coreplay programmers who will benefit from easier-to-use smart contract environments.
-These changes in AssetHub are enabled by key Polkadot 2.0 technologies: -PolkaVM supporting Coreplay, and -hyper data availability in Blobs Chain.

-

Motivation

-

EVM Contracts are pervasive in the Web3 blockchain ecosystem, -while Polkadot 2.0's Coreplay aims to surpass EVM Contracts in ease-of-use using PolkaVM's RISC architecture.

-

Asset Hub for Polkadot does not have smart contract capabilities, -even though dominant stablecoin assets such as USDC and USDT are originated there.
-In addition, in the RFC #32 - Minimal Relay Chain architecture, -DOT balances are planned to be shifted to Asset Hub, to support Polkadot 2.0's -CoreJam map-reduce architecture.
-In this 2.0 architecture, there is no room for synchronous contracts on the Polkadot relay chain -- -doing so would waste precious resources that should be dedicated to sync+async composability.
-However, while Polkadot fellows have concluded the Polkadot relay chain should not support -synchronous smart contracts, this is not applicable to AssetHub for Polkadot.

-

The following sections argue for the need for Smart Contracts on AssetHub.

-

Defi+NFT Applications need Smart Contracts on AssetHub

-

EVM Smart Contract chains within Polkadot and outside are dominated by defi + NFT applications. While the assetConversion pallet (implementing Uniswap v1) is a start to having some basic defi on AssetHub, -many programmers may be surprised to find that synchronous EVM smart contract capabilities (e.g. uniswap v2+v3) on other chains are not possible on AssetHub.

-

Indeed, this is true for many Polkadot parachains, with the exception of the top 2 Polkadot parachains (by marketcap circa early 2024: Moonbeam + Astar) who do include the EVM pallets.
-This leads to a cumbersome Polkadot EVM smart contract programming experience between AssetHub and these 2 Polkadot parachains, making the Polkadot ecosystem hard to work with for asset-related applications from defi to NFTs.

-

The ink! defi ecosystem remains nascent, having only Astar as a potential home, and empirically has almost no defi/NFT activity. Although e.g. uniswap translations have been written,

-

An AssetHub for Polkadot deployment of EVM and ink! contracts, it is hoped, would likely support new applications for top assets (USDC and USDT) and spur many smart contract developers to develop end user applications with familiar synchronous programming constructs.

-

Rollups need Smart Contracts on AssetHub

-

Polkadot Data Availability technology is extremely promising but underutilized.
-We envision a new class of customer, "Polkadot Rollups" that can utilize Polkadot DA far better than Ethereum and other technology platforms.
-Unlike Ethereum's DA which is capped at a fixed throughput now extending to EIP-4844, Polkadot data availability is linear in the number of cores.
-This means Polkadot can support a much larger number of rollups than Ethereum now, and even more as the number of cores in Polkadot grows. -This performance difference has not been widely appreciated in the blockchain community.

-

Recently, a "Blobs" chain has been developed to expose Polkadot DA to rollups by senior Polkadot Fellows:

- -

A rollup kit is mappable to widely used rollup platforms, such as OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit or StarkNet Madara.
-A Blobs chain, currently deployed on Kusama (paraID 3338), enables rollups to utilize functionality outside the Polkadot 1.0 parachain architecture by having rollups submit transactions via a rollup kit abstraction. The Blobs chain write interface is simple blobs.submitBlob(namespaceId, blob) with a matching read interface.

-

However, simply sending blobs is not enough to power a rollup. End users need to interact with a "settlement layer", while rollups require proof systems for security.

-

Key functionality for optimistic rollups (e.g. OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit) are:

- -

Analogous functionality exist for ZK-rollup platforms (e.g. Polygon zkEVM, StarkNet Madara), with high potential for using the same Blobs+AssetHub chains.

-

While it is possible to have the operations in EVM Contracts translated in FRAME pallets (e.g. an "opstack" pallet), we do not believe a pallet translation confers significant benefits.
-Instead, we believe the translation would require regular updates from the rollup platform, which have proven difficult to implement in practice.

-

ink! on AssetHub will lead to CorePlay Developers on AssetHub

-

While ink! WASM Smart Contracts have been promising technology, the adoption of ink! WASM Contracts amongst Polkadot parachains has been low, in practice just Astar to date, with nowhere near as many developers.
-This may be due to missing tooling, slow compile times, and/or simply because ink!/Rust is just harder to learn than Solidity, the dominant programming language of EVM Chains.

-

Fortunately, ink! can compile to PolkaVM, a new RISC based VM that has the special capability of suspending and resuming the registers, supporting long-running computations.
-This has the key new promise of making smart contract languages easier to use -- instead of smart contract developers worrying about what can be done within the gas limits of a specific block or a specific transaction, Coreplay smart contracts can be much easier to program on (see here).

-

We believe AssetHub should support ink! as a precursor to support CorePlay's capabilities as soon as possible.
-To the best of our knowledge, release times of this are unknown but having ink! inside AssetHub would be natural for Polkadot 2.0.

-

Stakeholders

- -

Explanation

-

Limit Smart Contract Weight allocation

-

AssetHub is a major component of the Polkadot 2.0 Minimal Relay Chain architecture. It is critical that smart contract developers not be able to clog AssetHub's blockspace for other mission critical applications, such as Staking and Governance.

-

As such, it is proposed that at most 50% of the available weight in AssetHub for Polkadot blocks be allocated to smart contracts pallets (EVM, ink! and/or Coreplay). While to date AssetHub has limited usage, it is believed (see here) that imposing this limit on smart contracts pallet would limit the effect on non-smart contract usage. A excessively small weight limit like 10% or 20% may limit the attractiveness of Polkadot as a platform for Polkadot rollups and EVM Contracts. A excessively large weight like 90% or 100% may threaten AssetHub usage.

-

In practice, this 50% weight limit would be used for 3 categories of smart contract usage:

- -

We expect the first category to dominate. If AssetHub smart contract usage increases so as to approach this 50% limit, the gas price will increase significantly. This likely motivates EVM contract developers to migrate to a EVM contract chain and/or rethink their application to work asynchronously within CoreJam, another major Polkadot 2.0 technology.

-

Model AssetHub Assets inside EVM Smart Contracts based on Astar

-

It is essential to make AssetHub assets interface well with EVM Smart Contracts. -Polkadot parachains Astar and Moonbeam have a mapping between assetIDs and "virtual" EVM Contracts.

- -

We propose that AssetHub support a systemic mapping following Astar: -(a) Native Relay DOT + KSM - should be mapped to 0xFFfFfFffFFfffFFfFFfFFFFFffFFFffffFfFFFfF on AssetHub for Polkadot and AssetHub for Kusama respectively -(b) Other Assethubs assets should map into an EVM address using a 0xffffffff prefix -https://docs.astar.network/docs/learn/interoperability/xcm/integration/tools#xc20-address

-

The usage of the above has been made code-complete by Astar:

- -

Polkadot parachains Astar and Moonbeam adopted two very different approaches of how end users interact with EVM Contracts.
-We propose that AssetHub for Polkadot adopt the Astar solution, mirroring it as closely as possible.

-

New DOT Revenue Sources

-

A substantial motivation in this proposal is to increase demand for DOT via two key chains:

- -

New Revenue from AssetHub EVM Contracts

-

Enabling EVM Contracts on AssetHub will support DOT revenue from:

- -

New Revenue for ink!/Coreplay Contracts

-

Enabling ink! contracts will pave the way to a new class of AssetHub Smart Contract Developers.
-Given PolkaVM's proven reduced compile time and RISC architecture enabling register snapshots, it is natural to utilize these new technical capabilities on a flagship system chain.
-To the extent these capabilities are attractive to smart contract developers, this has the potential for bringing in new DOT revenue from a system chain.

-

Drawbacks and Tradeoffs

-

Supporting EVM Contracts in AssetHub is seen by some as undercutting Polkadot's 1.0 parachain architecture, both special purpose appchains and smart contract developer platform parachains.
-We believe the lack of growth of parachains in the last 12-18 months, and the high potential of CorePlay motivates new options be pursued in system chains.

-

Maintaining EVM Contracts on AssetHub may be seen as difficult and may require Substrate engineers to maintain EVM Pallets and manage the xcContracts.
-We believe this cost will be relatively small based on the proven deployment of Astar and Moonbeam.
-The cost will be justified compared to the potential upside of new DOT revenue from defi/NFT applications on AssetHub and the potential for utilizing Polkadot DA for Polkadot rollups.

-

Testing, Security, and Privacy

-

Testing the mapping between assetIDs and EVM Contracts thoroughly will be critical.

-

Having a complete working OP Stack chain using AssetHub for Kusama (1000) and Blobs on Kusama (3338) would be highly desirable, but is unlikely to be required.

-

Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

-

Performance

-

The weight limit of 50% is expected to be adequate to limit excess smart contract usage at this time.

-

Storage bloat is expected to kept to a minimum with the nominal 0.01 Existential Deposit.

-

Ergonomics

-

Note that the existential deposit is not 0 DOT but being lowered from 0.1 DOT to 0.01 DOT, which may pose problems for some developers.
-Many developers routinely deploy their EVM contracts on many different EVM Chains in parallel. This non-zero ED may pose problems for some developers

-

The 0.01 DOT (worth $0.075 USD) is unlikely to pose significant issue.

-

Compatibility

-

It is believed that EVM pallet (as deployed on Moonbeam + Astar) is sufficiently compatible with Ethereum, and that the ED of 0.01 DOT pose negligible issues.

-

The messaging architecture for rollups are not compatible with Polkadot XCM.
-It is not clear if leading rollup platforms (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon zkEVM) could be made compatible with XCM.

-

Unresolved Questions

-

It is highly desirable to know the throughput of Polkadot DA with popular rollup architectures OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit.
-This would enable CEXs and EVM L2 builders to choose Polkadot over Ethereum.

- -

If accepted, this RFC could pave the way for CorePlay on Asset Hub for Polkadot/Kusama, a major component of Polkadot 2.0's smart contract future.

-

The importance of precompiles should

(source)

Table of Contents

and much more...

-

Stakeholders

+

Stakeholders

-

Explanation

+

Explanation

I've created the stateful multisig pallet during my studies in Polkadot Blockchain Academy under supervision from @shawntabrizi and @ank4n. After that, I've enhanced it to be fully functional and this is a draft PR#3300 in polkadot-sdk. I'll list all the details and design decisions in the following sections. Note that the PR is not 1-1 exactly to the current RFC as the RFC is a more polished version of the PR after updating based on the feedback and discussions.

Let's start with a sequence diagram to illustrate the main operations of the Stateful Multisig.

multisig operations

@@ -1157,10 +959,10 @@ pub type PendingProposals<T: Config> = StorageDoubleMap< -

Testing, Security, and Privacy

+

Testing, Security, and Privacy

Standard audit/review requirements apply.

-

Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

-

Performance

+

Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

+

Performance

Doing back of the envelop calculation to proof that the stateful multisig is more efficient than the stateless multisig given it's smaller footprint size on blocks.

Quick review over the extrinsics for both as it affects the block size:

Stateless Multisig: @@ -1224,17 +1026,17 @@ We have the following extrinsics:

| Stateless | N^2 | Nil | | Stateful | N | N |

So even though the stateful multisig has a larger state size, it's still more efficient in terms of block size and total footprint on the blockchain.

-

Ergonomics

+

Ergonomics

The Stateful Multisig will have better ergonomics for managing multisig accounts for both developers and end-users.

-

Compatibility

+

Compatibility

This RFC is compatible with the existing implementation and can be handled via upgrades and migration. It's not intended to replace the existing multisig pallet.

Prior Art and References

multisig pallet in polkadot-sdk

-

Unresolved Questions

+

Unresolved Questions

- +

Solution Requirements

The maximum length of identity PGP Fingerprint values should be increased from the current 20 bytes/chars limit at least a 40 bytes/chars limit to support PGP Fingerprints and GPG Fingerprints.

-

Stakeholders

+

Stakeholders

-

Explanation

+

Explanation

If a user tries to setting an on-chain identity by creating an extrinsic using Polkadot.js with identity > setIdentity(info), then if they try to provide their 40 character long PGP Fingerprint or GPG Fingerprint, which is longer than the maximum length of 20 bytes/chars [u8;20], then they will encounter this error:

createType(Call):: Call: failed decoding identity.setIdentity:: Struct: failed on args: {...}:: Struct: failed on pgpFingerprint: Option<[u8;20]>:: Expected input with 20 bytes (160 bits), found 40 bytes

Increasing maximum length of identity PGP Fingerprint values from the current 20 bytes/chars limit to at least a 40 bytes/chars limit would overcome these errors and support PGP Fingerprints and GPG Fingerprints, satisfying the solution requirements.

Drawbacks

No drawbacks have been identified.

-

Testing, Security, and Privacy

+

Testing, Security, and Privacy

Implementations would be tested for adherance by checking that 40 bytes/chars PGP Fingerprints are supported.

No effect on security or privacy has been identified than already exists.

No implementation pitfalls have been identified.

-

Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

-

Performance

+

Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

+

Performance

It would be an optimization, since the associated exposed interfaces to developers and end-users could start being used.

To minimize additional overhead the proposal suggests a 40 bytes/chars limit since that would at least provide support for PGP Fingerprints, satisfying the solution requirements.

-

Ergonomics

+

Ergonomics

No potential ergonomic optimizations have been identified.

-

Compatibility

+

Compatibility

Updates to Polkadot.js Apps, API and its documentation and those referring to it may be required.

Prior Art and References

No prior articles or references.

-

Unresolved Questions

+

Unresolved Questions

No further questions at this stage.

- +

Relates to RFC entitled "Increase maximum length of identity raw data values from 32 bytes".

(source)

Table of Contents

@@ -1365,14 +1167,14 @@ Implement call filters. This will allow multisig accounts to only accept certain AuthorsGeorge Pisaltu -

Summary

+

Summary

This RFC proposes the expansion of the extrinsic type identifier from the current most significant bit of the first byte of the encoded extrinsic to the two most significant bits of the first byte of the encoded extrinsic.

-

Motivation

+

Motivation

In order to support transactions that use different authorization schemes than currently exist, a new extrinsic type must be introduced alongside the current signed and unsigned types. Currently, an encoded extrinsic's first byte indicate the type of extrinsic using the most significant bit - 0 for unsigned, 1 for signed - and the 7 following bits indicate the extrinsic format version, which has been equal to 4 for a long time.

By taking one bit from the extrinsic format version encoding, we can support 2 additional extrinsic types while also having a minimal impact on our capability to extend and change the extrinsic format in the future.

-

Stakeholders

+

Stakeholders

Runtime users.

-

Explanation

+

Explanation

An extrinsic is currently encoded as one byte to identify the extrinsic type and version. This RFC aims to change the interpretation of this byte regarding the reserved bits for the extrinsic type and version. In the following explanation, bits represented using T make up the extrinsic type and bits represented using V make up the extrinsic version.

Currently, the bit allocation within the leading encoded byte is 0bTVVV_VVVV. In practice in the Polkadot ecosystem, the leading byte would be 0bT000_0100 as the version has been equal to 4 for a long time.

This RFC proposes for the bit allocation to change to 0bTTVV_VVVV. As a result, the extrinsic type bit representation would change as follows:

@@ -1385,21 +1187,21 @@ Implement call filters. This will allow multisig accounts to only accept certain

Drawbacks

This change would reduce the maximum possible transaction version from the current 127 to 63. In order to bypass the new, lower limit, the extrinsic format would have to change again.

-

Testing, Security, and Privacy

+

Testing, Security, and Privacy

There is no impact on testing, security or privacy.

-

Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

+

Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

This change would allow Polkadot to support new types of transactions, with the specific "general" transaction type in mind at the time of writing this proposal.

-

Performance

+

Performance

There is no performance impact.

-

Ergonomics

+

Ergonomics

The impact to developers and end-users is minimal as it would just be a bitmask update on their part for parsing the extrinsic type along with the version.

-

Compatibility

+

Compatibility

This change breaks backwards compatiblity because any transaction that is neither signed nor unsigned, but a new transaction type, would be interpreted as having a future extrinsic format version.

Prior Art and References

The original design was originally proposed in the TransactionExtension PR, which is also the motivation behind this effort.

-

Unresolved Questions

+

Unresolved Questions

None.

- +

Following this change, the "general" transaction type will be introduced as part of the Extrinsic Horizon effort, which will shape future work.

(source)

Table of Contents

@@ -1441,9 +1243,9 @@ Implement call filters. This will allow multisig accounts to only accept certain AuthorsGavin Wood -

Summary

+

Summary

This proposes a periodic, sale-based method for assigning Polkadot Coretime, the analogue of "block space" within the Polkadot Network. The method takes into account the need for long-term capital expenditure planning for teams building on Polkadot, yet also provides a means to allow Polkadot to capture long-term value in the resource which it sells. It supports the possibility of building rich and dynamic secondary markets to optimize resource allocation and largely avoids the need for parameterization.

-

Motivation

+

Motivation

Present System

The Polkadot Ubiquitous Computer, or just Polkadot UC, represents the public service provided by the Polkadot Network. It is a trust-free, WebAssembly-based, multicore, internet-native omnipresent virtual machine which is highly resilient to interference and corruption.

The present system of allocating the limited resources of the Polkadot Ubiquitous Computer is through a process known as parachain slot auctions. This is a parachain-centric paradigm whereby a single core is long-term allocated to a single parachain which itself implies a Substrate/Cumulus-based chain secured and connected via the Relay-chain. Slot auctions are on-chain candle auctions which proceed for several days and result in the core being assigned to the parachain for six months at a time up to 24 months in advance. Practically speaking, we only see two year periods being bid upon and leased.

@@ -1464,7 +1266,7 @@ Implement call filters. This will allow multisig accounts to only accept certain
  • The solution SHOULD avoid creating additional dependencies on functionality which the Relay-chain need not strictly provide for the delivery of the Polkadot UC.

    • Furthermore, the design SHOULD be implementable and deployable in a timely fashion; three months from the acceptance of this RFC should not be unreasonable.

    -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    Primary stakeholder sets are:

    Socialization:

    The essensials of this proposal were presented at Polkadot Decoded 2023 Copenhagen on the Main Stage. A small amount of socialization at the Parachain Summit preceeded it and some substantial discussion followed it. Parity Ecosystem team is currently soliciting views from ecosystem teams who would be key stakeholders.

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    Overview

    Upon implementation of this proposal, the parachain-centric slot auctions and associated crowdloans cease. Instead, Coretime on the Polkadot UC is sold by the Polkadot System in two separate formats: Bulk Coretime and Instantaneous Coretime.

    When a Polkadot Core is utilized, we say it is dedicated to a Task rather than a "parachain". The Task to which a Core is dedicated may change at every Relay-chain block and while one predominant type of Task is to secure a Cumulus-based blockchain (i.e. a parachain), other types of Tasks are envisioned.

    @@ -1905,16 +1707,16 @@ InstaPoolHistory: (empty)
  • Governance upgrade proposal(s).
  • Monitoring of the upgrade process.
    • -

    Performance, Ergonomics and Compatibility

    +

    Performance, Ergonomics and Compatibility

    No specific considerations.

    Parachains already deployed into the Polkadot UC must have a clear plan of action to migrate to an agile Coretime market.

    While this proposal does not introduce documentable features per se, adequate documentation must be provided to potential purchasers of Polkadot Coretime. This SHOULD include any alterations to the Polkadot-SDK software collection.

    -

    Testing, Security and Privacy

    +

    Testing, Security and Privacy

    Regular testing through unit tests, integration tests, manual testnet tests, zombie-net tests and fuzzing SHOULD be conducted.

    A regular security review SHOULD be conducted prior to deployment through a review by the Web3 Foundation economic research group.

    Any final implementation MUST pass a professional external security audit.

    The proposal introduces no new privacy concerns.

    - +

    RFC-3 proposes a means of implementing the high-level allocations within the Relay-chain.

    RFC-5 proposes the API for interacting with Relay-chain.

    Additional work should specify the interface for the instantaneous market revenue so that the Coretime-chain can ensure Bulk Coretime placed in the instantaneous market is properly compensated.

    @@ -1963,10 +1765,10 @@ InstaPoolHistory: (empty) AuthorsGavin Wood, Robert Habermeier -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    In the Agile Coretime model of the Polkadot Ubiquitous Computer, as proposed in RFC-1 and RFC-3, it is necessary for the allocating parachain (envisioned to be one or more pallets on a specialised Brokerage System Chain) to communicate the core assignments to the Relay-chain, which is responsible for ensuring those assignments are properly enacted.

    This is a proposal for the interface which will exist around the Relay-chain in order to communicate this information and instructions.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    The background motivation for this interface is splitting out coretime allocation functions and secondary markets from the Relay-chain onto System parachains. A well-understood and general interface is necessary for ensuring the Relay-chain receives coretime allocation instructions from one or more System chains without introducing dependencies on the implementation details of either side.

    Requirements

    -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    Primary stakeholder sets are:

    Socialization:

    This content of this RFC was discussed in the Polkdot Fellows channel.

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    The interface has two sections: The messages which the Relay-chain is able to receive from the allocating parachain (the UMP message types), and messages which the Relay-chain is able to send to the allocating parachain (the DMP message types). These messages are expected to be able to be implemented in a well-known pallet and called with the XCM Transact instruction.

    Future work may include these messages being introduced into the XCM standard.

    UMP Message Types

    @@ -2061,12 +1863,12 @@ assert_eq!(targets.iter().map(|x| x.1).sum(), 57600);

    Realistic Limits of the Usage

    For request_revenue_info, a successful request should be possible if when is no less than the Relay-chain block number on arrival of the message less 100,000.

    For assign_core, a successful request should be possible if begin is no less than the Relay-chain block number on arrival of the message plus 10 and workload contains no more than 100 items.

    -

    Performance, Ergonomics and Compatibility

    +

    Performance, Ergonomics and Compatibility

    No specific considerations.

    -

    Testing, Security and Privacy

    +

    Testing, Security and Privacy

    Standard Polkadot testing and security auditing applies.

    The proposal introduces no new privacy concerns.

    - +

    RFC-1 proposes a means of determining allocation of Coretime using this interface.

    RFC-3 proposes a means of implementing the high-level allocations within the Relay-chain.

    Drawbacks, Alternatives and Unknowns

    @@ -2117,13 +1919,13 @@ assert_eq!(targets.iter().map(|x| x.1).sum(), 57600); AuthorsJoe Petrowski -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    As core functionality moves from the Relay Chain into system chains, so increases the reliance on the liveness of these chains for the use of the network. It is not economically scalable, nor necessary from a game-theoretic perspective, to pay collators large rewards. This RFC proposes a mechanism -- part technical and part social -- for ensuring reliable collator sets that are resilient to attemps to stop any subsytem of the Polkadot protocol.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    In order to guarantee access to Polkadot's system, the collators on its system chains must propose blocks (provide liveness) and allow all transactions to eventually be included. That is, some collators may censor transactions, but there must exist one collator in the set who will include a @@ -2159,12 +1961,12 @@ to censor any subset of transactions.

  • Collators selected by governance SHOULD have a reasonable expectation that the Treasury will reimburse their operating costs.
    • -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    This protocol builds on the existing Collator Selection pallet and its notion of Invulnerables. Invulnerables are collators (identified by their AccountIds) who @@ -2203,21 +2005,21 @@ approximately:

    Drawbacks

    The primary drawback is a reliance on governance for continued treasury funding of infrastructure costs for Invulnerable collators.

    -

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    +

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    The vast majority of cases can be covered by unit testing. Integration test should ensure that the Collator Selection UpdateOrigin, which has permission to modify the Invulnerables and desired number of Candidates, can handle updates over XCM from the system's governance location.

    -

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    +

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    This proposal has very little impact on most users of Polkadot, and should improve the performance of system chains by reducing the number of missed blocks.

    -

    Performance

    +

    Performance

    As chains have strict PoV size limits, care must be taken in the PoV impact of the session manager. Appropriate benchmarking and tests should ensure that conservative limits are placed on the number of Invulnerables and Candidates.

    -

    Ergonomics

    +

    Ergonomics

    The primary group affected is Candidate collators, who, after implementation of this RFC, will need to compete in a bond-based election rather than a race to claim a Candidate spot.

    -

    Compatibility

    +

    Compatibility

    This RFC is compatible with the existing implementation and can be handled via upgrades and migration.

    Prior Art and References

    @@ -2235,9 +2037,9 @@ migration.

  • SR Labs Auditors
  • Current collators including Paranodes, Stake Plus, Turboflakes, Peter Mensik, SIK, and many more.
    • -

    Unresolved Questions

    +

    Unresolved Questions

    None at this time.

    - +

    There may exist in the future system chains for which this model of collator selection is not appropriate. These chains should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    (source)

    @@ -2276,10 +2078,10 @@ appropriate. These chains should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    AuthorsPierre Krieger -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    The full nodes of the Polkadot peer-to-peer network maintain a distributed hash table (DHT), which is currently used for full nodes discovery and validators discovery purposes.

    This RFC proposes to extend this DHT to be used to discover full nodes of the parachains of Polkadot.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    The maintenance of bootnodes has long been an annoyance for everyone.

    When a bootnode is newly-deployed or removed, every chain specification must be updated in order to take the update into account. This has lead to various non-optimal solutions, such as pulling chain specifications from GitHub repositories. When it comes to RPC nodes, UX developers often have trouble finding up-to-date addresses of parachain RPC nodes. With the ongoing migration from RPC nodes to light clients, similar problems would happen with chain specifications as well.

    @@ -2288,9 +2090,9 @@ When it comes to RPC nodes, UX developers often have trouble finding up-to-date

    Because the list of bootnodes in chain specifications is so annoying to modify, the consequence is that the number of bootnodes is rather low (typically between 2 and 15). In order to better resist downtimes and DoS attacks, a better solution would be to use every node of a certain chain as potential bootnode, rather than special-casing some specific nodes.

    While this RFC doesn't solve these problems for relay chains, it aims at solving it for parachains by storing the list of all the full nodes of a parachain on the relay chain DHT.

    Assuming that this RFC is implemented, and that light clients are used, deploying a parachain wouldn't require more work than registering it onto the relay chain and starting the collators. There wouldn't be any need for special infrastructure nodes anymore.

    -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    This RFC has been opened on my own initiative because I think that this is a good technical solution to a usability problem that many people are encountering and that they don't realize can be solved.

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    The content of this RFC only applies for parachains and parachain nodes that are "Substrate-compatible". It is in no way mandatory for parachains to comply to this RFC.

    Note that "Substrate-compatible" is very loosely defined as "implements the same mechanisms and networking protocols as Substrate". The author of this RFC believes that "Substrate-compatible" should be very precisely specified, but there is controversy on this topic.

    While a lot of this RFC concerns the implementation of parachain nodes, it makes use of the resources of the Polkadot chain, and as such it is important to describe them in the Polkadot specification.

    @@ -2330,7 +2132,7 @@ message Response {

    Drawbacks

    The peer_id and addrs fields are in theory not strictly needed, as the PeerId and addresses could be always equal to the PeerId and addresses of the node being registered as the provider and serving the response. However, the Cumulus implementation currently uses two different networking stacks, one of the parachain and one for the relay chain, using two separate PeerIds and addresses, and as such the PeerId and addresses of the other networking stack must be indicated. Asking them to use only one networking stack wouldn't feasible in a realistic time frame.

    The values of the genesis_hash and fork_id fields cannot be verified by the requester and are expected to be unused at the moment. Instead, a client that desires connecting to a parachain is expected to obtain the genesis hash and fork ID of the parachain from the parachain chain specification. These fields are included in the networking protocol nonetheless in case an acceptable solution is found in the future, and in order to allow use cases such as discovering parachains in a not-strictly-trusted way.

    -

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    +

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    Because not all nodes want to be used as bootnodes, implementers are encouraged to provide a way to disable this mechanism. However, it is very much encouraged to leave this mechanism on by default for all parachain nodes.

    This mechanism doesn't add or remove any security by itself, as it relies on existing mechanisms. However, if the principle of chain specification bootnodes is entirely replaced with the mechanism described in this RFC (which is the objective), then it becomes important whether the mechanism in this RFC can be abused in order to make a parachain unreachable.

    @@ -2339,22 +2141,22 @@ Furthermore, when a large number of providers (here, a provider is a bootnode) a

    For this reason, an attacker can abuse this mechanism by randomly generating libp2p PeerIds until they find the 20 entries closest to the key representing the target parachain. They are then in control of the parachain bootnodes. Because the key changes periodically and isn't predictable, and assuming that the Polkadot DHT is sufficiently large, it is not realistic for an attack like this to be maintained in the long term.

    Furthermore, parachain clients are expected to cache a list of known good nodes on their disk. If the mechanism described in this RFC went down, it would only prevent new nodes from accessing the parachain, while clients that have connected before would not be affected.

    -

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    -

    Performance

    +

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    +

    Performance

    The DHT mechanism generally has a low overhead, especially given that publishing providers is done only every 24 hours.

    Doing a Kademlia iterative query then sending a provider record shouldn't take more than around 50 kiB in total of bandwidth for the parachain bootnode.

    Assuming 1000 parachain full nodes, the 20 Polkadot full nodes corresponding to a specific parachain will each receive a sudden spike of a few megabytes of networking traffic when the key rotates. Again, this is relatively negligible. If this becomes a problem, one can add a random delay before a parachain full node registers itself to be the provider of the key corresponding to BabeApi_next_epoch.

    Maybe the biggest uncertainty is the traffic that the 20 Polkadot full nodes will receive from light clients that desire knowing the bootnodes of a parachain. Light clients are generally encouraged to cache the peers that they use between restarts, so they should only query these 20 Polkadot full nodes at their first initialization. If this every becomes a problem, this value of 20 is an arbitrary constant that can be increased for more redundancy.

    -

    Ergonomics

    +

    Ergonomics

    Irrelevant.

    -

    Compatibility

    +

    Compatibility

    Irrelevant.

    Prior Art and References

    None.

    -

    Unresolved Questions

    +

    Unresolved Questions

    While it fundamentally doesn't change much to this RFC, using BabeApi_currentEpoch and BabeApi_nextEpoch might be inappropriate. I'm not familiar enough with good practices within the runtime to have an opinion here. Should it be an entirely new pallet?

    - +

    It is possible that in the future a client could connect to a parachain without having to rely on a trusted parachain specification.

    (source)

    Table of Contents

    @@ -2375,13 +2177,13 @@ If this every becomes a problem, this value of 20 is an arbitrary constant that AuthorsJonas Gehrlein -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    The Polkadot UC will generate revenue from the sale of available Coretime. The question then arises: how should we handle these revenues? Broadly, there are two reasonable paths – burning the revenue and thereby removing it from total issuance or divert it to the Treasury. This Request for Comment (RFC) presents arguments favoring burning as the preferred mechanism for handling revenues from Coretime sales.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    How to handle the revenue accrued from Coretime sales is an important economic question that influences the value of DOT and should be properly discussed before deciding for either of the options. Now is the best time to start this discussion.

    -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    Polkadot DOT token holders.

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    This RFC discusses potential benefits of burning the revenue accrued from Coretime sales instead of diverting them to Treasury. Here are the following arguments for it.

    It's in the interest of the Polkadot community to have a consistent and predictable Treasury income, because volatility in the inflow can be damaging, especially in situations when it is insufficient. As such, this RFC operates under the presumption of a steady and sustainable Treasury income flow, which is crucial for the Polkadot community's stability. The assurance of a predictable Treasury income, as outlined in a prior discussion here, or through other equally effective measures, serves as a baseline assumption for this argument.

    Consequently, we need not concern ourselves with this particular issue here. This naturally begs the question - why should we introduce additional volatility to the Treasury by aligning it with the variable Coretime sales? It's worth noting that Coretime revenues often exhibit an inverse relationship with periods when Treasury spending should ideally be ramped up. During periods of low Coretime utilization (indicated by lower revenue), Treasury should spend more on projects and endeavours to increase the demand for Coretime. This pattern underscores that Coretime sales, by their very nature, are an inconsistent and unpredictable source of funding for the Treasury. Given the importance of maintaining a steady and predictable inflow, it's unnecessary to rely on another volatile mechanism. Some might argue that we could have both: a steady inflow (from inflation) and some added bonus from Coretime sales, but burning the revenue would offer further benefits as described below.

    @@ -2424,13 +2226,13 @@ If this every becomes a problem, this value of 20 is an arbitrary constant that AuthorsJoe Petrowski -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    Since the introduction of the Collectives parachain, many groups have expressed interest in forming new -- or migrating existing groups into -- on-chain collectives. While adding a new collective is relatively simple from a technical standpoint, the Fellowship will need to merge new pallets into the Collectives parachain for each new collective. This RFC proposes a means for the network to ratify a new collective, thus instructing the Fellowship to instate it in the runtime.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    Many groups have expressed interest in representing collectives on-chain. Some of these include:

    -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    Status quo

    A parachain can either be locked or unlocked3. With parachain locked, the parachain manager does not have any privileges. With parachain unlocked, the parachain manager can perform following actions with the paras_registrar pallet:

    Drawbacks

    Other than all other system chains, development and maintenance of the Encointer Network is mainly financed by the KSM Treasury and possibly the DOT Treasury in the future. Encointer is dedicated to maintaining its network and runtime code for as long as possible, but there is a dependency on funding which is not in the hands of the fellowship. The only risk in the context of funding, however, is that the Encointer runtime will see less frequent updates if there's less funding.

    -

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    +

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    No changes to the existing system are proposed. Only changes to how maintenance is organized.

    -

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    +

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    No changes

    Prior Art and References

    Existing Encointer runtime repo

    -

    Unresolved Questions

    +

    Unresolved Questions

    None identified

    - +

    More info on Encointer: encointer.org

    (source)

    Table of Contents

    @@ -2844,11 +2646,11 @@ This can be unified and simplified by moving both parts into the runtime.

    AuthorsJoe Petrowski, Gavin Wood -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    The Relay Chain contains most of the core logic for the Polkadot network. While this was necessary prior to the launch of parachains and development of XCM, most of this logic can exist in parachains. This is a proposal to migrate several subsystems into system parachains.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    Polkadot's scaling approach allows many distinct state machines (known generally as parachains) to operate with common guarantees about the validity and security of their state transitions. Polkadot provides these common guarantees by executing the state transitions on a strict subset (a backing @@ -2860,13 +2662,13 @@ blockspace) to the network.

    By minimising state transition logic on the Relay Chain by migrating it into "system chains" -- a set of parachains that, with the Relay Chain, make up the Polkadot protocol -- the Polkadot Ubiquitous Computer can maximise its primary offering: secure blockspace.

    -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    The following pallets and subsystems are good candidates to migrate from the Relay Chain:

    -

    Unresolved Questions

    +

    Unresolved Questions

    There remain some implementation questions, like how to use balances for both Staking and Governance. See, for example, Moving Staking off the Relay Chain.

    - +

    Ideally the Relay Chain becomes transactionless, such that not even balances are represented there. With Staking and Governance off the Relay Chain, this is not an unreasonable next step.

    With Identity on Polkadot, Kusama may opt to drop its People Chain.

    @@ -3076,13 +2878,13 @@ With Staking and Governance off the Relay Chain, this is not an unreasonable nex AuthorsVedhavyas Singareddi -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    At the moment, we have system_version field on RuntimeVersion that derives which state version is used for the Storage. We have a use case where we want extrinsics root is derived using StateVersion::V1. Without defining a new field under RuntimeVersion, we would like to propose adding system_version that can be used to derive both storage and extrinsic state version.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    Since the extrinsic state version is always StateVersion::V0, deriving extrinsic root requires full extrinsic data. This would be problematic when we need to verify the extrinsics root if the extrinsic sizes are bigger. This problem is further explored in https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/issues/19

    @@ -3094,11 +2896,11 @@ One of the main challenge here is some extrinsics could be big enough that this included in the Consensus block due to Block's weight restriction. If the extrinsic root is derived using StateVersion::V1, then we do not need to pass the full extrinsic data but rather at maximum, 32 byte of extrinsic data.

    -

    Stakeholders

    +

    Stakeholders

    -

    Explanation

    +

    Explanation

    In order to use project specific StateVersion for extrinsic roots, we proposed an implementation that introduced parameter to frame_system::Config but that unfortunately did not feel correct. @@ -3127,23 +2929,23 @@ pub const VERSION: RuntimeVersion = RuntimeVersion {

    Drawbacks

    There should be no drawbacks as it would replace state_version with same behavior but documentation should be updated so that chains know which system_version to use.

    -

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    +

    Testing, Security, and Privacy

    AFAIK, should not have any impact on the security or privacy.

    -

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    +

    Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

    These changes should be compatible for existing chains if they use state_version value for system_verision.

    -

    Performance

    +

    Performance

    I do not believe there is any performance hit with this change.

    -

    Ergonomics

    +

    Ergonomics

    This does not break any exposed Apis.

    -

    Compatibility

    +

    Compatibility

    This change should not break any compatibility.

    Prior Art and References

    We proposed introducing a similar change by introducing a parameter to frame_system::Config but did not feel that is the correct way of introducing this change.

    -

    Unresolved Questions

    +

    Unresolved Questions

    I do not have any specific questions about this change at the moment.

    - +

    IMO, this change is pretty self-contained and there won't be any future work necessary.

    (source)

    Table of Contents

    @@ -3172,9 +2974,9 @@ is the correct way of introducing this change.

    AuthorsSebastian Kunert -

    Summary

    +

    Summary

    This RFC proposes a new host function for parachains, storage_proof_size. It shall provide the size of the currently recorded storage proof to the runtime. Runtime authors can use the proof size to improve block utilization by retroactively reclaiming unused storage weight.

    -

    Motivation

    +

    Motivation

    The number of extrinsics that are included in a parachain block is limited by two constraints: execution time and proof size. FRAME weights cover both concepts, and block-builders use them to decide how many extrinsics to include in a block. However, these weights are calculated ahead of time by benchmarking on a machine with reference hardware. The execution-time properties of the state-trie and its storage items are unknown at benchmarking time. Therefore, we make some assumptions about the state-trie: