-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
docs(specs): Subnet Lifecycle #895
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 1 commit
3c23926
053044a
bebe27c
8e2a5c9
8ba48fa
fd634cf
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ | ||
# Subnet Lifecycle | ||
A subnet is a new subsystem that a user can spawn from a parent subnet in a permissionless and on-demand way, depending on scalability requirements. Subnets have separate consensus algorithms and cryptoeconomic rules from their parent subnet. Subnets are firewalled from the parent network. | ||
|
||
Subnets begin with a chosen "rootnet". In case of L2 subnets, “rootnets” refer to a layer 1 blockchain, such as Filecoin or Ethereum. Child subnets are spawned from the rootnet and the rootnet becomes the parent subnet. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Parent subnet, parent network, rootnet – are these all the same concept? Maybe it makes sense to have a Glossary? eg take a look at https://fluence.dev/docs/build/glossary. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Good point, I can raise this to the team. But here |
||
|
||
Each subnet can have any number of child subnets, while each child subnet only has one parent subnet. Subnets can scale infinitely, to layer 2 and beyond. A single hierarchy tree begins at the chosen rootnet. | ||
|
||
Subnets within a single hierarchy tree have native communication protocols and are able to transfer assets and state without a custom bridge. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Between which parties? I guess it's between all the subnets (parents, children, etc), I guess makes sense to point out what exactly these native communication protocols unite. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. My understanding is the communication does not really have to be specified in the spec, up to the implementation. |
||
|
||
## **Lifecycle** | ||
|
||
The lifecycle of a subnet begins when it’s deployed and ends when the subnet is closed. | ||
|
||
Before a subnet is created, one must specify the validator power allocation mode, which is called the `PermissionMode`. There are three kinds of permission mode at the moment: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is "created" the same as "deployed", or these are different phases of the lifecycle? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yeah, good point. What do you mean by
cryptoAtwill marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
- `Collateral`: This means the power of the validator comes from the collateral staked. New validators can `join` the subnet, also `stake` more collateral, `unstake` collateral and finally `leave` the subnet | ||
- `Federated`: The power of the validator is set by the owner of the subnet | ||
- `Static`: The power of the validator is set when the subnet is created. This mode is used mainly for debugging and testing | ||
|
||
At the time of subnet creation, a minimum validator count requirement is set by the subnet creator. If the subnet’s permission mode is collateral, the creator could also set the minimum collateral requirement for the subnet to be bootstrapped. A standard fee for the transaction on the parent network will be paid for the transaction that establishes the subnet. | ||
cryptoAtwill marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
Before the minimal requirements are met, the subnet is in a `preBootstrap` state, once those conditions are met, the subnet is in a `postBootstap` state. Any operations performed on the subnet in `preBootstrap` state is recorded in the subnet `genesis`. | ||
|
||
For normal users, they can perform: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What is a normal user? Is it a Validator that's not an Owner, or just a 3rd party who has a wallet in the subnet? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 3rd party who has a wallet in the subnet. I will rephrase this a little. |
||
|
||
- Prefund: Provide genesis balance to the subnet | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Would be nice to elaborate a bit on who usually does that and why |
||
- Fund: Send fund from the parent to an address in the child subnet. The parent will track the total circulating supply of the subnet. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. So it's about moving some of the child subnet's native token from parent to child? Maybe it makes sense to mention that Parent and Child might have different notion of "fund", ie different native token? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That should be covered in the |
||
- Release: Send fund from the child subnet to an address in the parent subnet | ||
- Cross Message Call: Call another contract in another subnet | ||
|
||
For validators in `Collateral` permission mode, they can: | ||
|
||
- Join: Put some stake into the subnet and becomes a validator | ||
- State: Add more stake into the subnet | ||
- Unstake: WIthdraw stake from the subnet | ||
- Leave: WIthdraw all stake from the subnet | ||
cryptoAtwill marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
For detailed explanation on how `Collateral` and `FederatedPower` affect the validator’s voting power, see `SubnetValidation`. | ||
|
||
### Deployment | ||
|
||
For ipc powered subnet, it’s deployed through `SubnetRegistry`. This contract should be deployed together with the gateway. One can simply call [newSubnetActor](https://github.com/consensus-shipyard/ipc/blob/7af25c4c860f5ab828e8177927a0f8b6b7a7cc74/contracts/src/subnetregistry/RegisterSubnetFacet.sol#L22) method to deploy a new subnet under the gateway contract. But do note that this method requires permission. The creator of this registry could limit the access on who can deploy new subnets or there are no restrictions at all, see [line](https://github.com/consensus-shipyard/ipc/blob/7af25c4c860f5ab828e8177927a0f8b6b7a7cc74/contracts/src/subnetregistry/RegisterSubnetFacet.sol#L95). | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are there any other options? If yes, maybe mention that subnet abstracts away the implementation? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. currently we only have IPC implementation, but as long as the interface is aligned, it should be ok |
||
|
||
### Genesis | ||
|
||
The genesis state of the subnet is tracked in the [SubnetActorStorage](https://github.com/consensus-shipyard/ipc/blob/7af25c4c860f5ab828e8177927a0f8b6b7a7cc74/contracts/src/lib/LibSubnetActorStorage.sol#L10) struct of the subnet, any field that starts with `genesis*`. | ||
|
||
For `Collateral` permission mode, validators’ stake can be updated and is directly reflected in the validator’s genesis weight until the subnet is bootstrapped. However, for `Federated` permission mode, the owner must make sure the minimum number of validators are met, see [check](https://github.com/consensus-shipyard/ipc/blob/7af25c4c860f5ab828e8177927a0f8b6b7a7cc74/contracts/src/lib/LibSubnetActor.sol#L82). | ||
|
||
The child subnet blockchain, i.e. fendermint, can query the parent subnet actor to [obtain](https://github.com/consensus-shipyard/ipc/blob/7af25c4c860f5ab828e8177927a0f8b6b7a7cc74/fendermint/app/src/cmd/genesis.rs#L33) the genesis information. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. So subnet has "blockchain" and something else? Maybe makes sense to elaborate on what constitutes a Subnet then There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I mean just the subnet actor and the blockchain. |
||
|
||
For detailed breakdown on the genesis file, see SubnetConfiguration. | ||
|
||
### Bootstrap | ||
|
||
The subnet is bootstrapped once the minimal validator requirement and, for `Collateral` permission mode, the minimal collateral requirement, are met. | ||
|
||
The `bootstrapped` state of the subnet will become `true` and the `genesis` of the subnet will now be immutable. One need to note that once the subnet is bootstrapped, the `SubnetActor` will [register](https://github.com/consensus-shipyard/ipc/blob/7af25c4c860f5ab828e8177927a0f8b6b7a7cc74/contracts/src/gateway/GatewayManagerFacet.sol#L33) itself to the corresponding gateway contract. The `SubnetActor` will transfer its fund to the gateway and the gateway will manage the funds for each registered subnet. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So there's a Maybe it makes sense to start this article by enumerating possible state and some transition arrows? i.e. ASCII or Mermaid state diagram. |
||
|
||
This is the current trust model for IPC. The gateway is transparent, trustworthy and manages the routing/funding for each subnet. | ||
|
||
### **Closing a Subnet** | ||
|
||
The conditions for closing a subnet are as follows: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Who can initiate a subnet closure? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Currently there is no permission required if all validators have left the subnet |
||
|
||
- A child subnet cannot be killed until its circulating supply is zero, which can be achieved when all users send their funds back to a parent. | ||
- If all validators leave a subnet even when there are still users of the subnet, the users will have to either run their own validator or wait for a validator to return to the subnet. | ||
- If a bug causes the subnet to fail, there is no way to recover funds in the subnet without a valid checkpoint signed by the latest validator committee. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is it related to closing a subnet, or just a general consideration? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. general consideration |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Recursive definition. I guess this should mention that subnet is a chain of its own, and one can think of a subnet as an
LN+1
connected to aLN
chain, egL2
is connected toL1
.Is "parent network" different from "parent subnet"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
they are the same
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then I think it's best to name them the same to avoid confusion. As this is the spec, it should be very dry and precise, IMO.