Hacktoberfest 2026：メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

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

オープン
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#224 コメント 2 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
25/100
issue の種類
リファクタリング
明瞭さ
明確に書かれている
活発さ
活発
技術スタック
solidity
領域
backend, blockchain

調査の方向性

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.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

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)
主要言語
Python
スター
4
フォーク
7
平均マージ
3日 58分
マージ済み PR（30日）
39

環境構築

このプロジェクトには開発コンテナ、Dockerfile、コントリビューションガイドがありません。まず README を読み、一般的な手順ははじめてのコントリビューションガイドを参照してください。

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet のほかの issue

InfiniteZeroFoundation/DevNet の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Python の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。