Title: State_Fees__formerly_State_rent__pre_EIP_proposal_
Category: Working_Groups

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-02-14T12:03:45.522Z

Version 3 is now up for discussion.
Main changes compared to version 2:

Replay protection for externally owned accounts changed from temporal to non-temporal to ensure that account nonces are never reused (reuse of nonces allow re-creation of contracts)
Lock-ups are replaced with rent prepayments. Prepayments provide protection from dust griefing vulnerability, though temporary rather than permanent. Prepayments cannot be released, which avoids issues of changing economics of some smart contracts, like DEXs
State counters are introduced to make the state size metrics trivially observable, as well as to provide future path for floating rent, if needed.
Transaction format is not modified
Functionally of gaslimit (field of a transaction) is extended so that gaslimit*gasprice limits prepayments
Floating rent and “clean” eviction of contracts are re-added for completeness as optional changes

https://github.com/ledgerwatch/eth_state/blob/master/State_Fees_3.pdf

Author: jochem-brouwer
Date: 2019-03-04T18:56:50.504Z

Oops looks like I responded to the wrong topic here: State Rent proposal version 2 (rushed)
My comments on there still apply: is there a more detailed document somewhere where I can find the details of the current proposal? Via V3 I first need to look over the base version and then understand the changes made to it - this adds some overhead because I might have some problems with the original version but then find out that this is fixed in V3 =)

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-03-05T09:14:25.144Z

Thank you for reading!
I am sorry for the overhead. I have been writing proposals in that form because it was easier to start with, and I expected them to be presented in this form to get feedback. But there were not sufficient opportunities to present (mostly because it was not a lot of time since it all started, and I am very limited in my ability to travel around the conferences). At some point - most probably with the version 4, I am planning to add a more detailed commentary paper.

Author: jochem-brouwer
Date: 2019-03-05T17:12:19.971Z

Allright I will stick with this version then!

Author: nootropicat
Date: 2019-03-10T03:00:21.250Z

Why not move the entire current state off-chain, add stateless witnesses to blocks and implement state rent as something separate, for those that want on-chain state?
If state fees are implemented, I think new contracts will move to the stateless design with cache, rather than to the create2 subcontract variant to keep fees lower. If that’s correct, making the protocol stateless by default would end in a better place resources-wise, because protocol-level implementation would be faster and more space efficient.
Most importantly, it would require no contract migration - perfectly backwards compatible as far as current contracts and accounts are concerned, only nodes and wallets would have to change.
How - each mining node keeps 1 day’s worth of state changes. Each transaction includes needed state that’s older than 100 blocks from the tip at the generation time, as full branches from the state root from that block. Keeping 24 hours of state history allows mining node to solve state contention within those 24 hours. For this reason unconfirmed transactions would be unlikely to be confirmed after 24 hours, unless some node keeps older state, but I think that’s fine.
Needed state branches would be generated by miners, per block, connected to the state root of the ancestor block, potentially composing duplicated state from sent transactions (especially consecutive calls of the same contract in one block).
State rent would be added on top of that, with the difference being that on-chain state doesn’t have to be included in state branches, both in transactions and in blocks.

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-03-10T08:36:29.328Z

Thank you!



 nootropicat:

Why not move the entire current state off-chain, add stateless witnesses to blocks and implement state rent as something separate, for those that want on-chain state?


I am currently developing a prototype (and it is kind of working, I am debugging around block 830’000 at the moment), that would calculate very accurately the witness overhead of this. Accurately because the prototype actually generates payload for witnesses and tries to execute the blocks only using transactions and the witnesses, and compares state and storage roots before and after the execution.



 nootropicat:

How - each mining node keeps 1 day’s worth of state changes. Each transaction includes needed state that’s older than 100 blocks from the tip at the generation time, as full branches from the state root from that block. Keeping 24 hours of state history allows mining node to solve state contention within those 24 hours. For this reason unconfirmed transactions would be unlikely to be confirmed after 24 hours, unless some node keeps older state, but I think that’s fine.


This would require a more complex prototype. However, this might also not solve one of the biggest problems with the large size (which straightforward witnesses do solve) - duration of the snapshot sync. With straightforward sync a node can start processing the blocks pretty much straight ahead.
Only including witnesses for things that are older than 100 blocks - this will require having snapshot sync that only syncs things modified in the last 100 blocks - but such snapshot is hard (or not possible) to verify (you would be at the mercy of your peers to tell you that the snapshot they gave you only contains recently changed items).
EDIT: It is definitely a great idea. Properly implementing it would require introducing a new state root in the blocks, which will correspond only to the items that have changed in the last 100 blocks. Then you can snapshot sync to that and start processing blocks with the trimmed stateless client.



 nootropicat:

State rent would be added on top of that, with the difference being that on-chain state doesn’t have to be included in state branches, both in transactions and in blocks.


One idea we heard (and we can check the viability using the data) is to introduce rent on accounts and code, but stateless clients on the contract storage. We shall see how much overhead that it.

Author: nootropicat
Date: 2019-03-10T13:42:28.963Z

I am currently developing a prototype (and it is kind of working, I am debugging around block 830’000 at the moment), that would calculate very accurately the witness overhead of this

Interesting, do you have an estimate for how big it could be?



 AlexeyAkhunov:

Only including witnesses for things that are older than 100 blocks


I meant that transactions - not in a block, but as sent to the mempool - include witnesses for a 100 block away - as a way to protect against orphans of recent blocks. It wouldn’t be a protocol rule, just a safe UX default, I guess it could be reduced to 10. Blocks would have only the most recent root.
You could generate a transaction with a witness from the tip and it could be included, assuming that block wasn’t orphaned.

this will require having snapshot sync

I don’t think snapshot sync is needed as far as pure stateless mode is concerned. Blocks would include the current state root, a new node could start validating straight away from the tip. You could start mining right away, after 10 blocks you could include transactions with witnesses from the last 10 blocks, after 1 hour from 1 hour etc.
Keeping 24 hours of state doesn’t have be enforced by the protocol - just as a node default. If some miner wants to only mine transactions that are at most 10 minutes old, at the cost of losing some fees, it’s his right.
It could be enforced in the way you described, but the only advantage I can see would be that new miners would be able to mine hours-old transactions instantly after fast syncing. If they want that, I think that could be better solved by off-chain protocols (eg. paid service that sells old state).

One idea we heard (and we can check the viability using the data) is to introduce rent on accounts and code, but stateless clients on the contract storage

It would solve what I think is the single biggest issue which is a free rider problem for token balances storage in current contracts.
I still think full stateless mode with on-chain state purely optional is a better way, for the state size too. Only contracts/accounts that are very heavily used would be on-chain. When some entity (eg. idex) would find out that witness fees in X days > state rent in X days, they would pay state rent for relevant contracts, saving block space for everyone that also uses them. A contract that’s only used once a year would be cheaper completely stateless.
Another argument is UX. Simple users wouldn’t even have to notice the change - as their wallet provider could provide witnesses for their accounts, at the cost of a slightly higher fees. Advanced users/developers would have the option to pay rent if they want.
It could be good to separate rent for code from contract storage rent. This way, most likely someone (eg. exchanges) would pay state rent for code of most used tokens as it would be relatively cheap and save them fees, but keeping contract storage stateless.
Potentially, optional on-chain storage could even come in a second fork after the stateless change, keeping everything fully stateless in the interim.

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-03-10T14:08:17.854Z

nootropicat:

nteresting, do you have an estimate for how big it could be?


Well, producing this estimate is the whole point of this prototype, so I will have data when it is done.



 nootropicat:

I meant that transactions - not in a block, but as sent to the mempool - include witnesses for a 100 block away - as a way to protect against orphans of recent blocks. It wouldn’t be a protocol rule, just a safe UX default, I guess it could be reduced to 10. Blocks would have only the most recent root.
You could generate a transaction with a witness from the tip and it could be included, assuming that block wasn’t orphaned


Verifying transaction against old state roots does not help anyone to execute them in the blocks - because they may have potentially touched different places in the state 100 blocks ago than now.
Generally, I would like this proposal (having stateless client with transactions dependent on old state roots) specified a bit more to analyse it properly. My current intuition is that it will not really work, but I do not want to spend too much time discovering exactly why, so I would appreciate some prior work on that.
In order to stay focused, I would also recommend keeping in mind the problems with the large state that we are trying to solve, as described here, here and here. For example, advanced sync protocol solves the first problem (failing sync), stateless client might solve the second and the forth problem (duration of the sync and state reads), and pre-warming the cache from the transaction pool may solve the third problem (slow block sealing).
Not only miners would like to be able to verify blocks as they come - some other nodes do too, otherwise the network would become a bunch of light clients connected to the miners.

Author: nootropicat
Date: 2019-03-10T15:42:51.910Z

I’ll try to describe it in pseudocode. I was always bad at explaining my ideas.
Example execution:
A miner has all storage fields (key:value) that were touched in the last 1000 blocks in state dictionary.
In mempool, there are several transactions containing witnesses for blocks between X-500 and X-100 in transactionList. Each witness is a dictionary of (key:value) pairs - transactionWitnessList.
stateOldestBlock = currentBlockHeight-1000

For each block, the miner executes
newBlockWitness = {}
newBlock = Block()
newState = state.copy()
for transaction in transactionList:
  #ignore transactions we can't solve contentions for - state witness too old
  if transaction.witnessBlock < stateOldestBlock:
    continue
  for txStorageKey in transaction.transactionWitnessList:
    #add only storage fields that weren't updated after transaction's witness block
    #this solves contention
    if txStorageKey not in newState:
      newState[txStorageKey] = transaction.transactionWitnessList[txStorageKey]
   accessedStateFields, newState = newBlock.addAndExecute(transaction.txWithoutWitness, newState)
   #accessedStateFields is a list of (key:value) pairs of all storage fields that were accessed
   #during transaction execution
   for accessedKey in accessedStateFields:
     #this ensures only witnesses for state that existed in a previous block are added
     #as opposed to fields created in a new block
     if accessedKey in state:
       newBlockWitness[accessedKey] = state[accessedKey]
newBlock.addWitness(newBlockWitness)
state = newState
newBlock.send()
#prune state not accessed in the last 1000 blocks
state = removeFieldsThatWerentAccessedForNBlocks(state, 1000)
stateOldestBlock += 1

(details like checking nonces or rejecting transactions with incomplete witness not included)
So:

no state at all is required to verify blocks
state accessed in last N blocks is needed to include a transaction with a state root for a block of height N, which could be as short as 10 blocks, which should always fit in RAM. Ie. only validation of unconfirmed transactions needs some recent state.
no fast sync is needed at all (in the pure stateless mode)
memory/time needed for block sealing depends on how old transactions are allowed by the miner, which grows O(n lg n) where n is number of storage accesses during the allowed period

P.S. As for part 4 (parallel execution) I had similar ideas some time ago.

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-03-10T16:56:31.844Z

nootropicat:

I’ll try to describe it in pseudocode. I was always bad at explaining my ideas.


I think you are good at explaining your ideas. Thank you for the pseudocode. However, I don’t think it goes deep enough to see the issues I am seeing. I suspect that if you go deeper into what “transactionWitnessList” actually contains, it is not just key:value pairs, but all the “surrounding” hashes, as you mentioned earlier yourself. These “surrounding” hashes would need to be updated even though the storage items that transaction is accessing did not change. If you mean that these would need to be verified against older roots, that is fine. But in order to actually verify the effect of this transaction on the “newState”, you would need to update the witness or have access to data “around” the path in the tree. What I am saying is that I do not think it is useful at all to the miner to have those proofs coming with the transactions - more likely than not, they will be mostly obsolete by the time transaction is included, even if transaction does not interfere with any items that were older than 100 block (which also needs to be investigated - how constrained this it).
Anyway, I do not think I will be able to implement this variant of stateless client, but I did implement the variant where block proofs are created by miners, and there are no transaction proofs (since I don’t think they can help the miner a lot). And this is what I am currently testing (it is just gone over 1.95m blocks).

Author: nootropicat
Date: 2019-03-12T22:11:43.341Z

These “surrounding” hashes would need to be updated even though the storage items that transaction is accessing did not change.

Yes, but if the data is modified in the 1000 block period (or 24h etc), all new hashes are known from other transactions/blocks. Those hashes must be held by miners for 1000 blocks along with changed values, ie. all data needed to modify all accessed fields + value of them. This means the miner has all the hashes needed to change the tree with it, by combining a partially obsolete witness from an old unconfirmed transaction (within the 1000 block period) with data from the cache.
Note that this must be possible in the stateless model: if you have all the data needed to execute a transaction at block t, and save all state changes until block t+n, you must be able to generate a recent witness for your transaction. If that’s not possible, this means miners are executing transactions based on some data that’s not present in interim witnesses, ie. the model is not actually stateless.
As it must be possible, it can as well be done by miners.

What I am saying is that I do not think it is useful at all to the miner to have those proofs coming with the transactions

What if transaction is accessing two different fields, A and B. A is changed by a newer transaction and old witness is indeed obsolete, however B isn’t accessed by anyone else and is in a different tree node? Without a witness for B, the miner isn’t going to know the full path to it and its value.

Author: storafee
Date: 2019-03-13T10:04:45.514Z

Would it be possible to write down the design rationale or requirements for this proposal?
The might be:

Avoid situations where a node does not get paid for cleaning up accounts risking a DoS attack.
Fee-rates need be flexible like any other operation as part of the block gaslimit.
Users should have guarantees about storage duration when paying fees.
Fees are fair over every byte of storage and not just accounts
Accounts don’t get deleted, but hibernated so that users are forever able to restore them.
Fees for any storage should be payable by any account
…

Did I miss anything?

Author: jpitts
Date: 2019-04-10T07:17:48.364Z

Supplementing this discussion of v3 of the State Fees proposal:
This video and transcript of Epicenter episode 274 is full of interesting info, descriptions of the various 1.x initiatives, and elaborations about state fees.

So this is what makes this I would say both very challenging and very rewarding at the same time because we’re not designing the pure system, we’re designing the migration from the legacy system to some non perfect system that we introduced. So that’s why when we started analyzing the implications of the rent on existing contract, there were a few things that basically sprung into the mind. So one of them is what we call the dust griefing vulnerability and the conclusion was that most of the contracts that exist today will be vulnerable to this attack.

Author: Infernaltoast
Date: 2019-04-22T14:45:36.633Z

I strongly argue against any form of state rent for a few reasons:

Many contracts have no owner, are not centralized, and so will have no good way of paying for state rent even if they are heavily utilized and important, core contracts
This would be a change that would break past contracts and the assumptions for their design
It could further incentivise centralization of contracts, only centralized contract (non-trustless) would work best, etc
There is no need for state rent because the current Ethereum full node chaindata size is 150GB, growing linearly, growing slower than advancements in solid state drive technology, and to prove this: Now you can buy a 512GB microSD card from Samsung, which can hold the entire state of Ethereum Mainnet THREE TIMES OVER for less than $100.    This means that Ethereum was already designed perfectly well, with current gas fees and no state rent.

Author: boris
Date: 2019-04-22T15:18:47.280Z

anyone can pay rent
not breaking contracts is a design goal
see 1
it’s not storage per se — i’ll go find the best answer for this.

These are all good “Frequently Asked Questions” that I think we can curate into some good answers @AlexeyAkhunov

Author: Infernaltoast
Date: 2019-04-22T17:47:43.592Z

Who would pay rent for a trustless decentralized non-owned contract?   This would fall victim to the Bystander effect where nobody wants to actually pay up, they would just wait for everyone else to donate to a contract to keep it running, then it will freeze and major Ethereum infrastructure would suddenly break.   It would feel really bad, really stupid to just throw away my own personal Ether to a contract that is owned by EVERYONE, like a library (safemath) or wEth, or 0xBTC, or an open free DEX like forkdelta contract with no owner and no extra fees.
It will break fundamental design assumptions for contracts by definition


Okay, I look forward to better understanding.  For as much as I know, if solid state storage were free, there would be no need for any of this discussion, and as time goes on, it is literally approaching ‘free’ exponentially.

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-04-22T18:47:38.791Z

There were two new opcodes proposed to address this - PAYRENT (allows any contract to pay rent for another), and CALLFEE (allows new contracts to demand rent contribution from the callers). It can change in later versions though. More radical solution which was in the first version, but later removed (but can still come back) is linear cross-contract storage, where the user who “owns” the data actually pays the rent, not the contract
Arguing for breaking assumption is very well, and in fact every successive version of the proposals breaks fewer and fewer (for example, this is the latest direction). However, if there was a choice between system working at all with some assumption broken, and system not working at all, most of us will choose the former.
It is similar to (1)
The state rent proposed is not trying to solve the problem of storage, which indeed becomes cheaper and cheaper. It is trying to solve the problem from the growing state, which is constantly changing blob of data that has to be instantly available to anyone wishing to process and validate blocks. It is more dynamic in nature that storage devices, so the arguments are more nuanced. There are described in the series of posts: here, here, and here. I posted those links in another reply above.

Author: Infernaltoast
Date: 2019-04-22T19:23:54.482Z

CALLFEE allowing new contracts to demand rent contribution is completely useless because old contracts cannot do this, especially those which have no owner and/or and immutable.  For example, the 0xBTC contract which is one of the most used contracts on the network (over 200k tx https://etherscan.io/address/0xb6ed7644c69416d67b522e20bc294a9a9b405b31) would not be able to implement CALLFEE because literally nobody owns the contract.    Nobody controls the contract, it is completely decentralized and trustless with no project, no team, no owner, and has hundreds of active users.  The contract cannot change and nobody is at the top.

It is absolutely wrong to introduce rent for this contract (in the way you describe) and others like it, because it will not be able to demand rent contribution from its users (contract cannot change)  and because there is absolutely no central party or team or project or anything like that.  Nobody exists to pay rent for it, yet it is a vital piece of Ethereum Network, being the only trustless decentralized ERC20 currency and it is used by almost every DEX for that purpose.   Would you please explain to me, in detail, what your solution to this would be?  Who would pay rent for a contract such as this and why would that make sense?    ( In my opinion, it might be ‘whoever interacts with the contract’ but I am not sure that is possible via the method you described unfortunately.  )  Or are you just going to go around playing God and nuke contracts just because they arent completely centralized with ICOs?

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-04-22T19:39:04.733Z

Infernaltoast:

Would you please explain to me, in detail, what your solution to this would be?


I would rather do that once the 4th version is ready, hopefully it will only introduce the constant cost to the contracts. I would like you to give me example of truly decentralised contracts that no one would have interest to pay a small fixed rent for, but everyone really needs. If such contracts exist, they can be re-deployed with the addition of CALLFEE.



 Infernaltoast:

Or are you just going to go around playing God and nuke contracts just because they arent completely centralized with ICOs?


I am not going to go around playing God. This is a job for me that I took on when people asked for it. It is a real problem that needs to be solved, and simply saying “there is no solution” is not very interesting. If you think our approach is reckless, you are probably not very familiar with the work that has been done so far

Author: Infernaltoast
Date: 2019-04-22T19:50:47.568Z

Alexey,
Thanks for looking into this and using it to guide protocol.  Here is an example of a contract:
https://etherscan.io/address/0xb6ed7644c69416d67b522e20bc294a9a9b405b31
It cannot be redeployed because the original would still be able to be mined, therefore both would be able to be mined at the same time!!! So the redeployment would obviously not be ‘real’. Besides, anyone can redeploy so who is to say which is ‘correct’?  The original contract cannot have mining disabled because nobody can ever modify the contract.  It is trustless with no owner.     It is an EIP 918 pure mined token using SHA3 hashing. It has over 5TH/s of hashrate and is used all over Ethereum in Uniswap, DEXes, Ethex, many other exchanges.  Its the only trustless and pure mined currency in Ethereum.   There are other similar contracts like wEth !  wEth could actually be redeployed though (not mined, more canonical), 0xb6 cannot since its mined.   It cannot be forked.     Does that make sense?

Author: AlexeyAkhunov
Date: 2019-04-22T21:19:47.494Z

Infernaltoast:

Besides, anyone can redeploy so who is to say which is ‘correct’? The original contract cannot have mining disabled because nobody can ever modify the contract. It is trustless with no owner


There are always other elements of the infrastructure that make a token valuable. Redeployment can happen according to a schedule, where the infrastructure players (Uniswap, DEXes, Ethex) would “delist” the old one and “list” the new one on that schedule. Someone has to, of course, show up and facilitate it (and then go away again). If no one shows up to facilitate, and no-one pays the rent, then the contract will be evicted. After that, it can be either brought back, or re-deployed, if someone does show up this time.

Author: Infernaltoast
Date: 2019-04-23T16:07:27.044Z

Alexey,
If the old contract can ever be ‘brought back’ after being evicted, that would mean that ANYONE could bring it back at any time.  If so, that would mean that a new one could never be deployed because then it would be possible for the old one to be brought back and then there would be two mineable contracts simultaneously.   Not only that, but the new contract would not have anyones balances on it and would essentially need to have some sort of mechanism to allow users to ‘convert’ their old tokens to the new tokens.   If both of those things are true, then that would mean that people could mine BOTH contracts at the same time,and then continuously convert their tokens from the old contract (newly mined) into the new contract and so then the hard cap of 21m on the new contract would be exceeded by definition, regardless of how you code the new contract, or else the new contract would need to be non-mined, i.e. it wouldnt work at all.  The tokens are fungible so you can’t tell if they were mined after a certain time, escalating the issue.
Therefore, no matter what anyone does, this rent change would destroy this 0xb6 contract completely. A new contract CANNOT BE DEPLOYED, it cannot be upgraded unless the old one is completely eradicated, think about it.  It cant be eradicated because its immutable and non-owned. Read what I said above.  If you do have a good idea, please let me know.   This is why massive breaking changes to old contracts (like this state rent idea) are horrible and will affect many many other contracts too.  This idea is like a sledgehammer.

Author: jvluso
Date: 2019-04-23T18:11:39.260Z

What are the plans for 0xbc when Ethereum transitions to proof of stake in eth2.0? Is it going to be redeployed on the POS chain or freeze in the ice age?