Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

Three dormant/no-op mechanisms awaiting a product decision: disableModel kill-switch, rejectModel fee handling, S6 slashing (M-2, L-4, BL-31)

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#224 2 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

@Santiagocetran ci sta già lavorando.

Dal 30/10/2026.

  • #305 di @Santiagocetran — aperta

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
25/100
Tipo di issue
Refactoring
Chiarezza
Specificata chiaramente
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
solidity
Ambito
backend, blockchain

Direzione di ricerca

Read Developer/BACK_LOG.md BL-31 and the cited audit findings M-2 and L-4, then review DINModelRegistry.sol, DINTaskCoordinator.sol, DINTaskAuditor.sol, and DinValidatorStake alongside #38. The issue needs product and mechanism design decisions across three independent behaviors before implementation can be scoped; done means documenting or implementing each agreed decision consistently.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

question

Three separate findings, batched because they share the same shape: each is a mechanism that exists in some form (an admin function, a fee flow, a slashing path) but nobody has made — or at least documented — the decision on whether/how it's actually meant to be used. None are exploitable bugs; all three just need someone with product/mechanism-design authority to decide, so the code (or the docs) can be made to match.

M-2: DINModelRegistry.disableModel() doesn't reach the live task contracts

modelDisabled[modelId] (DINModelRegistry.sol:119) only gates requestModelRegistration/requestManifestUpdate inside the registry itself (L151, L330). Confirmed by inspection against develop @ 740a613: DINTaskCoordinator.sol has zero references to DINModelRegistry, and DINTaskAuditor.sol's only two references are doc comments, not functional checks. A model the DIN-Representative has disabled — e.g., because its task contracts have a bug wrongfully slashing honest validators — keeps running full GIs completely unaffected. The task contracts' own doc table calls this a "kill-switch," which it currently isn't.

Decision needed: wire the task contracts to check DINModelRegistry.modelDisabled(modelId) before state-changing calls (real fix, requires threading the model ID + registry address into contracts that don't currently know about the registry at all), or explicitly document disableModel as registry-metadata-only so operators stop treating it as a circuit breaker.

L-4: rejectModel() never refunds the registration fee

Checked the full flow: feePaid is recorded at requestModelRegistration() (DINModelRegistry.sol:197) and is never refunded on either outcome — not on rejectModel() (L261-271) and not on approveModel() either (L217-258 doesn't touch feePaid at all). This consistency suggests the fee is intentionally a pay-to-apply cost regardless of outcome (anti-spam), not an oversight specific to rejection — but this was never written down anywhere as a deliberate choice.

Decision needed: confirm non-refundable-regardless-of-outcome is the intended design and document it (in DINModelRegistry.md and/or the dinrep role docs), so a future reader doesn't "fix" it into an inconsistent partial-refund state.

BL-31: S6 no-participation slashing is implemented, tested, but never called

DinValidatorStake.recordNoParticipation() (S6: escalating 10%-per-breach slash past a threshold, L333-354) is fully implemented and has its own tests. Every call site in both task contracts is a comment explaining why it's deliberately not called (DINTaskAuditor.sol:1391, DINTaskCoordinator.sol:1185) — slashPartial (S1/S2) already penalizes the same missed-work behavior, and calling both would double-penalize past MIN_STAKE. Confirmed: zero functional call sites anywhere in foundry/src/.

Decision needed: either S6 is meant to cover a gap S1/S2 don't (e.g., a validator registered but never assigned to any batch, so S1/S2 never trigger on them at all) and needs wiring to that specific case, or it's superseded dead code that should be removed along with its threshold parameter and event, per the slashing taxonomy (#38).

References

  • Developer/BACK_LOG.md BL-31
  • Documentation/technical/audits/foundry-src-security-review.md M-2, L-4 (confirmed still accurate against develop @ 740a613; several of that doc's other findings — M-3, M-4, L-1, L-5, L-7 — are already fixed but the doc was never updated to say so, a separate minor doc-hygiene item not covered by this issue)
  • PR #204 review (BL-31's source)
  • #38 (slashing taxonomy, relevant to the S6 decision)
Lingua principale
Python
Stelle
4
Fork
7
Merge medio
3g 4h
PR unite (30g)
34

Preparare l'ambiente

Questo progetto non fornisce container di sviluppo, Dockerfile né guida per i contributori, quindi l'ambiente è a tuo carico: parti dal suo README e consulta la nostra guida al primo contributo per i passaggi generali.

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet

Tutte le issue di InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet

Issue simili

Altre issue su Python

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.