016-08-2018: Follow up from review: - Revert changes to commit round - Remind about justification for removing pubkey - Update pros/cons 05-08-2018: Initial draft
ADR 009 introduced major improvements to the ABCI around validators and the use of Amino. Here we follow up with some additional changes to improve the naming and expected use of Validator messages.
Currently a Validator contains address
and pub_key
, and one or the other is
optional/not-sent depending on the use case. Instead, we should have a
Validator
(with just the address, used for RequestBeginBlock)
and a ValidatorUpdate
(with the pubkey, used for ResponseEndBlock):
message Validator {
bytes address
int64 power
}
message ValidatorUpdate {
PubKey pub_key
int64 power
}
As noted in ADR-009[https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/blob/develop/docs/architecture/adr-009-ABCI-design.md],
the Validator
does not contain a pubkey because quantum public keys are
quite large and it would be wasteful to send them all over ABCI with every block.
Thus, applications that want to take advantage of the information in BeginBlock
are required to store pubkeys in state (or use much less efficient lazy means
of verifying BeginBlock data).
LastCommitInfo currently has an array of SigningValidator
that contains
information for each validator in the entire validator set.
Instead, this should be called VoteInfo
, since it is information about the
validator votes.
Note that all votes in a commit must be from the same round.
message LastCommitInfo {
int64 round
repeated VoteInfo commit_votes
}
message VoteInfo {
Validator validator
bool signed_last_block
}
Use ValidatorUpdates instead of Validators. Then it's clear we don't need an address, and we do need a pubkey.
We could require the address here as well as a sanity check, but it doesn't seem necessary.
Use ValidatorUpdates for both Request and Response. InitChain is about setting/updating the initial validator set, unlike BeginBlock which is just informational.
Proposal.