Skip to content
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

[review] MIP-71: Informer V1 for the Operation of the Lock/Mint Native Bridge #71

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

apenzk
Copy link
Contributor

@apenzk apenzk commented Dec 14, 2024

Summary

MD-71
MIP-71

@apenzk apenzk changed the title [draft] MIP-71: Informer for the Operation of the Lock/Mint Native Bridge [review] MIP-71: Informer for the Operation of the Lock/Mint Native Bridge Dec 17, 2024
@apenzk apenzk requested a review from 0xmovses December 17, 2024 11:43
Copy link
Contributor

@0xmovses 0xmovses left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think a section is missing describing that the Informer is specifically a trusted off-chain service that is operated by movement labs and that this separate binary runs in its own process so as not to effect the relayer. Furthermore, It can only publish notifications or messages with which another service can attach (like a PagerDuty).

MD/md-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
MD/md-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
MD/md-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
MD/md-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
MIP/mip-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
MIP/mip-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
MIP/mip-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
MIP/mip-71/README.md Show resolved Hide resolved
MIP/mip-71/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

The timestamps of the two layers are not synchronized. We assume that the difference is negligible, however, for correctness, the implications of a drift between the L1 and L2 clocks should be considered. Moreover, the clocks of the layers progress discretely. This means that the Informer reads events from L1 and L2 with slightly different time stamps. This timestamp difference can introduce errors in the calculation of circulating token.

It is recommended that the Informer SHOULD not rely on timestamps.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What then, if not timestamps from the chain(s)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fair point.. i removed the sentence

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So we are going to use timestamps then? Your concern was that timestamps may not be accurate across chains. If we can't rely on timestamps I do wonder what else we could. Perhaps this is an assumption, that timestamps are accurate enough.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i think this is where postconfirmations may come into play, which forces some sort of synchronization. Essentially since L1-finalized postconfirmations take O(12min), transfers also increase in time for L1->L2 transfers. It is fair to assume that with such large time windows the clocks are sufficiently close. The only insecurity arises for inflight tokens which is not relevant for Informer V1. Long term we will study the implications. @franck44 may be following up on this and look into it using UPPAAL

@franck44 franck44 added bridge Urgent Needs urgent processing Needs changes Requires attention & changes labels Dec 17, 2024
@apenzk apenzk changed the title [review] MIP-71: Informer for the Operation of the Lock/Mint Native Bridge [review] MIP-71: Informer V1 for the Operation of the Lock/Mint Native Bridge Dec 18, 2024
@franck44 franck44 added MD Contains an MD MIP Contains an MIP labels Jan 13, 2025
@apenzk apenzk requested a review from 0xmovses January 13, 2025 16:22
@apenzk apenzk added ready-to-merge A PR that is ready to merge and removed Needs changes Requires attention & changes ready-to-merge A PR that is ready to merge labels Jan 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bridge MD Contains an MD MIP Contains an MIP Urgent Needs urgent processing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants