[N3] Proof of node #4304

shargon · 2025-11-11T17:41:37Z

Description

Close #4143
This PR will require a transaction from the DBFT plugin to ensure the node life.

Type of change

Optimization (the change is only an optimization)
Style (the change is only a code style for better maintenance or standard purpose)
Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Unit Testing
Run Application
Local Computer Tests
No Testing

Checklist:

My code follows the style guidelines of this project
I have performed a self-review of my code
I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
My changes generate no new warnings
I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

shargon · 2025-11-11T17:42:29Z

Please @neo-project/core take a look to this PR, we should decide the right values for PoW and frequency. Maybe we should move this values to policy: Difficult and frequency

roman-khimov · 2025-11-11T18:29:33Z

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/NeoToken.cs

+            if (!state.Registered)
+                throw new Exception("Only registered candidates are availables");
+
+            if (proofOfWork.ToString().StartsWith("0x0000")) // TODO: Decide the proper value


Why do we need a proof of work at all here? What does it prove?

I believe it is for all committee , not only CN

Cn could be set every time he is the primary

Why do we need a proof of work at all here? What does it prove?

Proof that the committee has a node

Well, this doesn't prove there is a node. I can separate this code from the node. My point is that a transaction is sufficient. Adding any calculations would be a serious regression for Neo and it wouldn't add any benefit.

I also think we don't need to introduce proof of work.

What's your proposal? Regular tx is easy to fake. I thought an idea but it's incompatible with huge amount of committee (outside 21).

If committee produce a signature of the previous block, the primary can choose this rpc signatures and use them as a proof when they persist the block.

@shargon @erikzhang , do you know? Double speakers would be perfect for that because we could, every round, make a committee to be a speaker and do round robin on that.

So, every member would need to be ready. Double speakers do that without any problems because they would be fallback. Based on node's statistics we would know the truth.

That's only work for 21, no for outside 21

I believe that if a node deliberately pretends to be online while refusing to participate in the consensus process, there is essentially no reliable way for us to detect such behavior. Therefore, the primary purpose of “proof of node” should not be to identify malicious non-participation. Instead, it should focus on preventing accidental misconfigurations by candidates—such as forgetting to run the node, failing to start the consensus module, or unintentionally launching multiple consensus instances.

Then only a tx is good for you, and maybe a counter of how many view changes?

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/NeoToken.cs

Wi1l-B0t · 2025-11-13T01:35:08Z

Could you give a detailed description for this feature ?

shargon · 2025-11-13T09:40:36Z

Could you give a detailed description for this feature ?

neo-project/proposals#211

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/PolicyContract.cs

vncoelho

@shargon , how about information for current state of MPT?

shargon · 2025-11-13T16:25:56Z

@shargon , how about information for current state of MPT?

The problem I see is that almost all the information can be easily accessed via RPC. That's the reason for Proof of Work.
A different approach is this: neo-project/proposals#211 (comment)

shargon · 2025-11-14T17:57:44Z

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/PolicyContract.cs

+        }
+
+        [ContractMethod(CpuFee = 1 << 15, RequiredCallFlags = CallFlags.States)]
+        private void SetProofOfNodeDifficulty(ApplicationEngine engine, ulong value)


@roman-khimov if difficulty is set to 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF you don't need a PoW.

I do not know, @shargon,
I do not support this PoW here.

I can support it on transactions to improve ordering.
I can support this of P2P propagation priorities.

But a PoW here, as @roman-khimov said, can be done by a different software and do not represent the readiness of a committee.
I do not understand your reasoning very well and the motivation behind this.

I would prefer, as I emphasized in the proposal, some up-to-date signatures from commit payloads, each of them specific to the node.
This at least says, in the same way as PoW, that committee is running some software and signing txs.

A small proof of work to proof that you have the right hardware and it was not done manually. Is not for every blocks, so I don't see any problem

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/PolicyContract.cs

src/Neo/Cryptography/ProofOfWork.cs

…roof-of-node

Wi1l-B0t · 2025-11-23T13:12:44Z

Conflicts

ajara87 · 2025-11-30T19:08:18Z

Fix conflicts on shargon#18

Fix conflicts

Proof of node

cbc8ce8

roman-khimov reviewed Nov 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

shargon added 3 commits November 11, 2025 19:33

Fix pow

7b73285

Ensure Primary it's alive

58778c3

Max Proof Of Node Height in policy

de06e7b

shargon commented Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/NeoToken.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

shargon mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2025

Clarifying Council intent on flattened GAS rewards #4289

Open

Set difficulty by policy

75b2bc7

shargon commented Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/PolicyContract.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

shargon added 5 commits November 13, 2025 10:59

Update src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/PolicyContract.cs

1140f19

Remove extra blank line

0d2a56f

Add comment

841ba47

Pow in separate class

6738aa7

Remove null

fe20a2e

shargon marked this pull request as ready for review November 13, 2025 10:32

vncoelho reviewed Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

shargon commented Nov 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

shargon changed the base branch from master to master-n3 November 14, 2025 18:22

shargon added Waiting for Review NGD Review This pr is an UT/Benchmark PR, NGD can review. neo3 labels Nov 14, 2025

shargon changed the title ~~Proof of node~~ [N3] Proof of node Nov 14, 2025

shargon mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2025

[N3] Flat rewards (21 first nodes) #4312

Open

18 tasks

shargon added N3 and removed neo3 labels Nov 17, 2025

shargon mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2025

[Nov. 27] Core Dev Regular Meeting Discussion #4321

Closed

ajara87 reviewed Nov 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/PolicyContract.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Reduce difficulty

c34ab6c

shargon commented Nov 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/Neo/Cryptography/ProofOfWork.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

shargon added 3 commits November 22, 2025 18:17

Update src/Neo/Cryptography/ProofOfWork.cs

829f58e

fix

35ca4e2

Merge branch 'proof-of-node' of https://github.com/shargon/neo into p…

a938a2b

…roof-of-node

ajara87 added 2 commits November 30, 2025 19:58

Merge branch 'master-n3' into proof-of-node

9cdbeec

Fix conflicts

b3a5248

Merge pull request #18 from ajara87/pr-4304

1f96009

Fix conflicts

[N3] Proof of node #4304

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[N3] Proof of node #4304

Conversation

shargon commented Nov 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Type of change

How Has This Been Tested?

Checklist:

Uh oh!

shargon commented Nov 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Wi1l-B0t commented Nov 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

shargon commented Nov 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vncoelho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shargon commented Nov 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vncoelho Nov 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

shargon Nov 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Wi1l-B0t commented Nov 23, 2025

Uh oh!

ajara87 commented Nov 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

shargon commented Nov 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

shargon commented Nov 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Wi1l-B0t commented Nov 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

vncoelho Nov 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

shargon Nov 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading