Skip to main content
Version: v0.52

ADR 009: Evidence Module

Changelog​

  • 2019 July 31: Initial draft
  • 2019 October 24: Initial implementation

Status​

Accepted

Context​

In order to support building highly secure, robust and interoperable blockchain applications, it is vital for the Cosmos SDK to expose a mechanism in which arbitrary evidence can be submitted, evaluated and verified resulting in some agreed upon penalty for any misbehavior committed by a validator, such as equivocation (double-voting), signing when unbonded, signing an incorrect state transition (in the future), etc. Furthermore, such a mechanism is paramount for any IBC or cross-chain validation protocol implementation in order to support the ability for any misbehavior to be relayed back from a collateralized chain to a primary chain so that the equivocating validator(s) can be slashed.

Decision​

We will implement an evidence module in the Cosmos SDK supporting the following functionality:

  • Provide developers with the abstractions and interfaces necessary to define custom evidence messages, message handlers, and methods to slash and penalize accordingly for misbehavior.
  • Support the ability to route evidence messages to handlers in any module to determine the validity of submitted misbehavior.
  • Support the ability, through governance, to modify slashing penalties of any evidence type.
  • Querier implementation to support querying params, evidence types, params, and all submitted valid misbehavior.

Types​

First, we define the Evidence interface type. The x/evidence module may implement its own types that can be used by many chains (e.g. CounterFactualEvidence). In addition, other modules may implement their own Evidence types in a similar manner in which governance is extensible. It is important to note any concrete type implementing the Evidence interface may include arbitrary fields such as an infraction time. We want the Evidence type to remain as flexible as possible.

When submitting evidence to the x/evidence module, the concrete type must provide the validator's consensus address, which should be known by the x/slashing module (assuming the infraction is valid), the height at which the infraction occurred and the validator's power at same height in which the infraction occurred.

type Evidence interface {
  Route() string
  Type() string
  String() string
  Hash() HexBytes
  ValidateBasic() error

  // The consensus address of the malicious validator at time of infraction
  GetConsensusAddress() ConsAddress

  // Height at which the infraction occurred
  GetHeight() int64

  // The total power of the malicious validator at time of infraction
  GetValidatorPower() int64

  // The total validator set power at time of infraction
  GetTotalPower() int64
}

Routing & Handling​

Each Evidence type must map to a specific unique route and be registered with the x/evidence module. It accomplishes this through the Router implementation.

type Router interface {
  AddRoute(r string, h Handler) Router
  HasRoute(r string) bool
  GetRoute(path string) Handler
  Seal()
}

Upon successful routing through the x/evidence module, the Evidence type is passed through a Handler. This Handler is responsible for executing all corresponding business logic necessary for verifying the evidence as valid. In addition, the Handler may execute any necessary slashing and potential jailing. Since slashing fractions will typically result from some form of static functions, allow the Handler to do this provides the greatest flexibility. An example could be k * evidence.GetValidatorPower() where k is an on-chain parameter controlled by governance. The Evidence type should provide all the external information necessary in order for the Handler to make the necessary state transitions. If no error is returned, the Evidence is considered valid.

type Handler func(Context, Evidence) error

Submission​

Evidence is submitted through a MsgSubmitEvidence message type which is internally handled by the x/evidence module's SubmitEvidence.

type MsgSubmitEvidence struct {
  Evidence
}

func handleMsgSubmitEvidence(ctx Context, keeper Keeper, msg MsgSubmitEvidence) Result {
  if err := keeper.SubmitEvidence(ctx, msg.Evidence); err != nil {
    return err.Result()
  }

  // emit events...

  return Result{
    // ...
  }
}

The x/evidence module's keeper is responsible for matching the Evidence against the module's router and invoking the corresponding Handler which may include slashing and jailing the validator. Upon success, the submitted evidence is persisted.

func (k Keeper) SubmitEvidence(ctx Context, evidence Evidence) error {
  handler := keeper.router.GetRoute(evidence.Route())
  if err := handler(ctx, evidence); err != nil {
    return ErrInvalidEvidence(keeper.codespace, err)
  }

  keeper.setEvidence(ctx, evidence)
  return nil
}

Genesis​

Finally, we need to represent the genesis state of the x/evidence module. The module only needs a list of all submitted valid infractions and any necessary params for which the module needs in order to handle submitted evidence. The x/evidence module will naturally define and route native evidence types for which it'll most likely need slashing penalty constants for.

type GenesisState struct {
  Params       Params
  Infractions  []Evidence
}

Consequences​

Positive​

  • Allows the state machine to process misbehavior submitted on-chain and penalize validators based on agreed upon slashing parameters.
  • Allows evidence types to be defined and handled by any module. This further allows slashing and jailing to be defined by more complex mechanisms.
  • Does not solely rely on Tendermint to submit evidence.

Negative​

  • No easy way to introduce new evidence types through governance on a live chain due to the inability to introduce the new evidence type's corresponding handler

Neutral​

  • Should we persist infractions indefinitely? Or should we rather rely on events?

References​