* refactor backing points to only reward active set
* impl disputes::RewardValidators
* enable rewards on westend, kusama, polkadot
* fmt
* make dispute points same as backing
* disable on polkadot for now
* Adjust to the new API
* Remove mutability
* Async constructor
* unwrap result
* do not panic
* suggestion
* leftover
* update lockfile for {"substrate"}
Co-authored-by: parity-processbot <>
* Use new ProtocolName in peer_set.rs
* Use new ProtocolName for request-response protocols
* Use new ProtocolName in polkadot-network-bridge
* Import and conversion fixes
* Use ProtocolName re-exported in sc_network
* update lockfile for {"substrate"}
Co-authored-by: parity-processbot <>
* Don't store available data on disputes
If there are lots of disputes, this leads to blowing up disk space on
validators. Rob luckily remembered that we do store the full
availability in participation.
The argument in the code does not make too much sense with the current
implementation, as no validator will ever request anything else from us,
than the one piece we are meant to posess.
* Fix warnings.
* Fix compile warnings
* Remove redundant field.
Co-authored-by: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod.stakhov@parity.io>
* Bump crate versions
* Bump spec_version to 9280 for kusama
* Bump spec_version to 9280 for polkadot
* Bump spec_version to 9280 for rococo
* Bump spec_version to 9280 for westend
* update Cargo.lock
Co-authored-by: parity-processbot <>
* Don't import backing statements directly
into the dispute coordinator. This also gets rid of a redundant
signature check. Both should have some impact on backing performance.
In general this PR should make us scale better in the number of parachains.
Reasoning (aka why this is fine):
For the signature check: As mentioned, it is a redundant check. The
signature has already been checked at this point. This is even made
obvious by the used types. The smart constructor is not perfect as
discussed [here](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/issues/3455),
but is still a reasonable security.
For not importing to the dispute-coordinator: This should be good as the
dispute coordinator does scrape backing votes from chain. This suffices
in practice as a super majority of validators must have seen a backing
fork in order for a candidate to get included and only included
candidates pose a threat to our system. The import from chain is
preferable over direct import of backing votes for two reasons:
1. The import is batched, greatly improving import performance. All
backing votes for a candidate are imported with a single import.
And indeed we were able to see in metrics that importing votes
from chain is fast.
2. We do less work in general as not every candidate for which
statements are gossiped might actually make it on a chain. The
dispute coordinator as with the current implementation would still
import and keep those votes around for six sessions.
While redundancy is good for reliability in the event of bugs, this also
comes at a non negligible cost. The dispute-coordinator right now is the
subsystem with the highest load, despite the fact that it should not be
doing much during mormal operation and it is only getting worse
with more parachains as the load is a direct function of the number of statements.
We'll see on Versi how much of a performance improvement this PR
* Get rid of dead code.
* Dont send approval vote
* Make it pass CI
* Bring back tests for fixing them later.
* Explicit signature check.
* Resurrect approval-voting tests (not fixed yet)
* Send out approval votes in dispute-distribution.
Use BTreeMap for ordered dispute votes.
* Bring back an important warning.
* Fix approval voting tests.
* Don't send out dispute message on import + test
+ Some cleanup.
* Guide changes.
Note that the introduced complexity is actually redundant.
* WIP: guide changes.
* Finish guide changes about dispute-coordinator
conceputally. Requires more proof read still.
Also removed obsolete implementation details, where the code is better
suited as the source of truth.
* Finish guide changes for now.
* Remove own approval vote import logic.
* Implement logic for retrieving approval-votes
into approval-voting and approval-distribution subsystems.
* Update roadmap/implementers-guide/src/node/disputes/dispute-coordinator.md
Co-authored-by: asynchronous rob <rphmeier@gmail.com>
* Review feedback.
In particular: Add note about disputes of non included candidates.
* Incorporate Review Remarks
* Get rid of superfluous space.
* Tidy up import logic a bit.
Logical vote import is now separated, making the code more readable and
maintainable.
Also: Accept import if there is at least one invalid signer that has not
exceeded its spam slots, instead of requiring all of them to not exceed
their limits. This is more correct and a preparation for vote batching.
* We don't need/have empty imports.
* Fix tests and bugs.
* Remove error prone redundancy.
* Import approval votes on dispute initiated/concluded.
* Add test for approval vote import.
* Make guide checker happy (hopefully)
* Another sanity check + better logs.
* Reasoning about boundedness.
* Use `CandidateIndex` as opposed to `CoreIndex`.
* Remove redundant import.
* Review remarks.
* Add metric for calls to request signatures
* More review remarks.
* Add metric on imported approval votes.
* Include candidate hash in logs.
* More trace log
* Break cycle.
* Add some tracing.
* Cleanup allowed messages.
* fmt
* Tracing + timeout for get inherent data.
* Better error.
* Break cycle in all places.
* Clarified comment some more.
* Typo.
* Break cycle approval-distribution - approval-voting.
Co-authored-by: asynchronous rob <rphmeier@gmail.com>
Adrian Catangiu