Contract size headroom for all contracts (DINTaskCoordinator −9 B over EIP-170 with PR No. 197) + slash reason for committed-but-unrevealed across commit-reveal flows
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
Research direction
Start with .github/workflows/ci.yml, foundry/anvil.sh, and the Foundry artifacts for DINTaskCoordinator and DINTaskAuditor; compare deployed bytecode sizes against EIP-170. Read the related decisions in issues No. 155 and No. 38 before choosing how committed-but-unrevealed validators should be slashed in both commit-reveal flows. Done means the mechanism decision is applied consistently, the size budget and CI gate cover every deployable contract, and both task contracts meet the recorded budget.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Summary
Two follow-ups from the PR No. 197 re-review (verification comment, findings No. 6 and No. 4), each widened from PR No. 197 to every contract it applies to:
- Part A: contract size. Once PR No. 197 is merged,
DINTaskCoordinatorexceeds EIP-170 and can't be deployed. Nothing in CI or local tooling catches this, and the other large contract (DINTaskAuditor) has only about 2 KB left. We need a size budget with real headroom for all deployable contracts, and a gate that enforces it. - Part B: slash reason for committed-but-unrevealed. In both commit-reveal flows (auditor scoring and T1/T2 aggregation), a validator who commits but never reveals is slashed as a liveness miss (30%), not as a wrong answer (100% of
minStake). This is a mechanism-owner decision, tied to the No. 155 S1/S2 fraction decision and the No. 38 slashing taxonomy.
Part A: EIP-170 headroom for all contracts
Current sizes (runtime, via_ir, solc 0.8.28, optimizer_runs = 200)
| Contract | develop @ 4658bf8 |
Margin | With PR No. 197 (b3ff1b9) |
Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DINTaskCoordinator |
22,689 B | 1,887 B | 24,585 B | −9 B |
DINTaskAuditor |
22,567 B | 2,009 B | 22,567 B | 2,009 B |
DinValidatorStake / V2 |
9,881 / 9,919 B | 14,695 / 14,657 B | unchanged | |
DINModelRegistry / V2 |
6,436 / 6,474 B | 18,140 / 18,102 B | unchanged | |
DinFeeRouter |
5,160 B | 19,416 B | unchanged | |
DinToken / V2 |
4,208 / 4,246 B | 20,368 / 20,330 B | unchanged | |
DinFairLaunchDistributor |
3,928 B | 20,648 B | unchanged | |
DinCoordinator / V2 |
3,697 / 3,736 B | 20,879 / 20,840 B | unchanged | |
DinEmission |
3,353 B | 21,223 B | unchanged | |
DinTreasury |
1,646 B | 22,930 B | unchanged |
The two per-model task contracts are the ones at risk. Both are already about 92% of the limit, and every mechanism-design item on the P3 roadmap (No. 38, No. 155, No. 192, No. 193, No. 194) adds code to one or the other. PR No. 191 and PR No. 197 each fitted on their own; merged together, they don't.
Why nothing caught it
.github/workflows/ci.ymlruns plainforge build/forge testwith no size check, and Solidity CI is green on PR No. 197'sb3ff1b9.forge testdoesn't enforce the limit: suite results were identical with and withoutFOUNDRY_DISABLE_CODE_SIZE_LIMIT=true.foundry/anvil.shstarts anvil with--code-size-limit 4294967295, so the local devnet deploys an oversized contract without complaint.forge build --sizesleavesDINTaskAuditorout of its table entirely (reproduced on both trees above; the figure here comes fromout/DINTaskAuditor.sol/DINTaskAuditor.json'sdeployedBytecode). So simply adding--sizesto CI would leave one of the two at-risk contracts ungated.
It would first surface as a revert when DeployPlatform.s.sol / the task-contract deploy runs against Optimism Sepolia.
Proposal
- Budget: a minimum runtime margin every deployable
foundry/srccontract must keep. Proposed: ≥ 1,024 B; to be confirmed. Also check initcode against EIP-3860's 49,152 B, currently far from binding. - CI gate: a step after
forge buildthat reads everyfoundry/out/<src contract>artifact directly (not the--sizestable, because of the omission above), and fails if any runtime size exceeds24,576 − budget. The log should print the full table so reviewers can see each contract's margin in every PR. - Bring
DINTaskCoordinatorback under budget. The immediate blocker for PR No. 197. Candidates, roughly cheapest first:- fold the near-duplicate T1/T2
commit…Aggregation/reveal…Aggregation/start…AggregationRevealbodies (PR No. 197,DINTaskCoordinator.solL807–1041 atb3ff1b9) into tier-parameterised internal functions, with external signatures unchanged; - the same for the other T1/T2 pairs (
finalize…, theslashAggregatorsT1/T2 branches); - collapse per-tier custom errors into tier-agnostic ones where the tier is already implied by the call;
- move large pure/view logic (shuffles, batch construction) into an external library;
- as a last resort, lower
optimizer_runsfor this contract only (via a compilation restriction), trading gas for size.
- fold the near-duplicate T1/T2
- Give
DINTaskAuditorthe same review before the next feature lands on it. It has the same shape of per-phase duplication. - Remove or document the
--code-size-limitoverride inanvil.sh, so local deploys fail the way a real chain would. At minimum, add a comment saying why it's there.
Acceptance
- CI fails when any
foundry/srccontract's runtime size is over24,576 − budgetB, and it coversDINTaskAuditor. DINTaskCoordinator(with PR No. 197) andDINTaskAuditorboth meet the budget.- The chosen budget is recorded in
Developer/CONTRIBUTING.md(or the Foundry README).
Part B: committed-but-unrevealed slash reason (all commit-reveal flows)
Current behaviour
| Flow | Commit-but-no-reveal is treated as | Slash | Revealed-but-wrong is treated as | Slash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Auditor scoring (DINTaskAuditor, PR No. 63) |
AUD_NO_VOTE (S1 liveness) |
s1SlashFractionBps (default 3000 = 30% of minStake) |
AUD_SCORE_DEVIATION (S3) |
full minStake |
T1/T2 aggregation (DINTaskCoordinator, PR No. 197) |
AGG_T1_NO_SUBMISSION / AGG_T2_NO_SUBMISSION (S2 liveness) |
s2SlashFractionBps (default 3000 = 30%) |
AGG_T1_BAD_CONSENSUS / AGG_T2_BAD_CONSENSUS |
full minStake |
In both flows, "committed and then withheld the reveal" can't be told apart from "never showed up".
The problem
Reveals land one at a time within the reveal window. A validator who has committed can watch peers' reveals, see that their own answer will end up in the minority, and choose not to reveal. They then pay the 30% liveness slash instead of the full-minStake slash for a wrong answer. Before commit-reveal, a wrong submission was irrevocable. So commit-reveal closes the copy-the-leader attack (No. 156 M-1) but opens a 70% discount on being wrong. The same holds on the auditor side, where S3 deviation is currently disabled by default (s3SlashingEnabled = false) but is intended to be turned on.
Options (mechanism-owner call)
- Distinct reason codes (
AGG_T*_NO_REVEAL,AUD_NO_REVEAL) with their own fraction, set between the liveness fraction and fullminStake, or equal to the wrong-answer slash. - Treat committed-but-unrevealed as the wrong-answer case (full
minStake). Simplest, but harsh on honest aggregators who miss the window through a genuine outage or a client-side bug (compare the retry/salt-overwrite bug, finding No. 1 on PR No. 197). - Keep as-is and document it as an accepted trust assumption, calibrated through the No. 155 S1/S2 fraction decision.
Whichever is chosen, it should be applied uniformly to both flows, and to any future commit-reveal flow (e.g. No. 178's multi-party commit-reveal seed, if adopted).
Related
No. 155 (S1/S2 fractions), No. 38 (slashing taxonomy and penalty tiers), No. 156 (M-1 aggregation commit-reveal), No. 192 (auditor commit hash sender binding), No. 193 (S5 recidivism). This should also get a row in the adversarial threat model (Developer/design/adversarial-threat-model.md).
cc @abrahamnash for Part B.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 4
- Forks
- 7
- Avg merge
- 3d 5h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 34
Getting set up
This project ships no dev container, Dockerfile or contributing guide, so setting up is up to you: start from its README, and see our first-contribution guide for the general steps.
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet
-
ROADMAP.md: refresh "What is still open for P3" (several items were fixed in October)Possibly taken @umermjd11 claimed this 3 days ago. Opendocumentation good first issue
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 74/100
InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet#285 · 1 comment · 1 assignee ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Update the 25 translated organisation READMEs to match the English versionPossibly taken @mrCabez claimed this 1 day ago. Opengood first issue help wanted
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet#277 · 2 comments · 1 assignee ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Update the client-service guide to explain training and uploading separatelyPossibly taken @Santiagocetran claimed this 1 day ago. Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet#266 · 1 assignee ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Few questions related to GI2 aggregatorPossibly taken @Abidoyesimze claimed this today. Open
InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet#307 · 1 reaction · 4 assignees ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug python
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 52/100
InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet#306 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
All issues in InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
vllm-project/vllm#64845 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
dekobon/big-code-analysis#1729 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
pydantic/pydantic-ai#12091 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100