Differential D9361

[avalanche] Build a stripped delegation to remove unnecessary levels
AbandonedPublic
Actions

Authored by Fabien on Mar 30 2021, 14:18.

Details

Reviewers

deadalnix

Group Reviewers

Restricted Project

Summary

When importing an existing delegation, allow to only keep the delegation
levels up the given public key.

The session key is expected to match the last level of the delegation, so only this last level is checked which is good for performance reason.
This diff will make it possible to pass a delegation to a node (feature to be added) where the delegation contains the session pubkey but is not the last level.
This makes it possible to build upfront a single delegation for several nodes without having to do a 1:1 match.

Test Plan

ninja all check-all

Diff Detail

Repository

rABC Bitcoin ABC

Branch

strip_delegation

Lint

Lint Passed

Unit

No Test Coverage

Build Status

Buildable 15433
Build 30787: Build Diff	lint-circular-dependencies · build-clang-tidy · build-diff · build-debug · build-without-wallet · build-clang
Build 30786: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

Fabien created this revision.Mar 30 2021, 14:18

Herald added a reviewer: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptMar 30 2021, 14:18

Fabien requested review of this revision.Mar 30 2021, 14:18

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B15428: Diff 28048.Mar 30 2021, 14:36

What problem is this solving?

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mar 30 2021, 15:06

Fabien edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Mar 31 2021, 06:10

Fabien removed a parent revision: D9353: [avalanche] Add an RPC to build a delegation.

Rebase, edit the summary to explain the use case.

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B15433: Diff 28055.Mar 31 2021, 06:47

The use case does not make sense. You don't want to have a long delegation chain for all the node one after the other anyways, you want to have a master key and delegate to each node. There is no point delegating to begin with if the master also have all the private key to which it is delegating. If you want to do that, you might as well distribute the master key instead of devising a complicated scheme that isn't any more secure.

Moreover, this seems like motivated reasoning to me. The problem mentioned is very abstract and it doesn't look like anyone has this problem today or that this is a blocker to launch.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Apr 1 2021, 12:28

Fabien abandoned this revision.Apr 2 2021, 06:39