feat: lock token transfer and parameter module #3176

piux2 · 2024-11-21T10:28:25Z

Context for Locking Token Transfer

This feature allows us to lock token transfers, except for paying gas fees to add a package or call a contract. The restriction will be unlocked through GovDAO voting on a proposal.

We also want a few whitelisted, unrestricted accounts to vote on the proposal since a separate fee is required to initiate and vote on proposals.

This implementation manages the lock and unlock settings in r/sys/params, where we change the chain’s parameters. Calling lock or unlock will automatically submit a proposal to GovDAO. Once GovDAO votes and approves the proposal, the token
transfer restriction will be removed instantly.

All changes to parameters specified in r/sys/params must go through GovDAO voting.

Here are some implementation details

Set a flag in base account to indicate if the account is restricted for token transfer.
Add a restricted Denom list in the bank module
System contract to handle
Verify realm access from r/sys/params for change chain parameters.
Integration test to simulate the end to end unlock process
Load params from genesis and verify the values

Main Idea Behind the Alternative Approach To implement parameter module ( Discussion)

The parameter module is designed to store chain and Cosmos SDK modules' parameters. It is not an arbitrary key-value storage system for Gno contracts.
Parameters are abstracted within each module's genesis state.
Parameters can only be modified through:
- The genesis state.
- gno.land/r/sys/gov/dao
The parameter module is intended for managing parameters of other modules, not specifically for the GnoVM.
The parameter module and genesis state support structures, not just primitive types, as parameters.
The ParameterKey prefix is defined in the module's prefix key. This must be registered with the parameter module to prevent conflicts in the parameter store's keyspace.

Todo: update other params...

Contributors' checklist...

Added new tests,
Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review
not needed
No breaking changes were made,
Added references to related issues and PRs
Provided any useful hints for running manual tests

codecov · 2024-11-21T10:29:59Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 41.80064% with 181 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
tm2/pkg/sdk/params/keeper.go	22.50%	31 Missing ⚠️
tm2/pkg/sdk/auth/params.go	0.00%	30 Missing ⚠️
tm2/pkg/sdk/bank/genesis.go	0.00%	24 Missing ⚠️
tm2/pkg/sdk/auth/genesis.go	0.00%	23 Missing ⚠️
tm2/pkg/std/errors.go	0.00%	19 Missing ⚠️
tm2/pkg/sdk/bank/keeper.go	76.47%	13 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
tm2/pkg/sdk/bank/params.go	61.53%	11 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
tm2/pkg/std/coin.go	28.57%	9 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
contribs/gnodev/pkg/dev/node.go	69.23%	4 Missing ⚠️
tm2/pkg/std/account.go	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
... and 2 more

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

zivkovicmilos

Thank you for pushing this out 🙏

I think the direction is good, but I'd love to discuss more about some implementation details. I'm mostly worried about us having a temporary implementation detail as a permanent state of a core object (check comments).

Pinging @moul to give a review as well.

Please check the CI 🙏

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-25T01:37:01Z

examples/gno.land/r/sys/params/unlock.gno

+	"gno.land/r/gov/dao/bridge"
+)
+
+const lockSendKey = "lockSend.bool"


Nitpick: you can group these in a const block

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-25T01:39:44Z

examples/gno.land/r/sys/params/unlock_test.gno

+	id := ProposeUnlockSend()
+	urequire.PanicsWithMessage(
+		t,
+		simpledao.ErrProposalNotAccepted.Error(),


Do you think we should standardize errors like these, to avoid having to import simpledao?
It would mean that the dao package would need to know about specific implementation details like errors, so I'm not sure if this is the way to go

cc @moul

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-25T01:47:30Z

gno.land/cmd/gnoland/testdata/transfer_unlock.txtar

+stdout '(0 uint64)'
+
+
+## vote unlock proposal with unrestricted account test1


Which accounts are going to be unrestricted in the initial version of the chain?

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-25T01:48:44Z

gno.land/pkg/gnoland/app.go

-	for _, param := range state.Params {
-		param.register(ctx, cfg.paramsKpr)
-	}
+	// The account keeper's initial genesis state must be set after genesis areccounts are created.


Typo here, accounts

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-25T01:48:59Z

gno.land/pkg/gnoland/app_test.go

-				{key: "foo", kind: "bool", value: true},
-				{key: "foo", kind: "bytes", value: []byte{0x48, 0x69, 0x21}},
-			},
+			/*


zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-26T00:46:08Z

tm2/pkg/sdk/auth/genesis.go

+	// Otherwise, we cannot verify the unrestricted address in the genesis state.
+
+	for _, addr := range data.Params.UnrestrictedAddrs {
+		acc := ak.GetAccount(ctx, addr)


There is tight coupling here. The account keeper must have a previously initialized account in order for us to modify it in another func

Can't we keep the store of unrestricted accounts somewhere, instead of keeping the Unrestricted information on the account itself?

My biggest concern is that we're coupling temporary logic (account balance transfer locks) into a structure that will be encoded and saved permanently to disk. Every time we use the account, even in 10 years, we will have to keep track of its "restricted state".

This is why I'm suggesting we go with an approach that isn't so coupled

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-26T00:47:24Z

tm2/pkg/sdk/auth/params.go

@@ -67,3 +70,41 @@ func (p Params) String() string {
 	sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("SigVerifyCostSecp256k1: %d\n", p.SigVerifyCostSecp256k1))
 	return sb.String()
 }
+
+func (p Params) Validate() error {
+	if p.TxSigLimit == 0 {


All of these should verify <= 0, not just ==

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-26T00:47:37Z

tm2/pkg/sdk/auth/params.go

+	ok, err := ak.paramk.GetParams(ctx, ModuleName, "p", params)
+
+	if !ok {
+		panic("params key " + ModuleName + " does not exist")


zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-26T00:48:40Z

tm2/pkg/sdk/auth/params.go

+	TxSizeCostPerByte      int64            `json:"tx_size_cost_per_byte" yaml:"tx_size_cost_per_byte"`
+	SigVerifyCostED25519   int64            `json:"sig_verify_cost_ed25519" yaml:"sig_verify_cost_ed25519"`
+	SigVerifyCostSecp256k1 int64            `json:"sig_verify_cost_secp256k1" yaml:"sig_verify_cost_secp256k1"`
+	UnrestrictedAddrs      []crypto.Address `json:"unrestricted_addrs" yaml:"unrestricted_addrs"`


Just a note we don't initialize this new field in DefaultParams

zivkovicmilos · 2024-11-26T00:51:01Z

tm2/pkg/sdk/auth/params.go

+	TxSizeCostPerByte      int64            `json:"tx_size_cost_per_byte" yaml:"tx_size_cost_per_byte"`
+	SigVerifyCostED25519   int64            `json:"sig_verify_cost_ed25519" yaml:"sig_verify_cost_ed25519"`
+	SigVerifyCostSecp256k1 int64            `json:"sig_verify_cost_secp256k1" yaml:"sig_verify_cost_secp256k1"`
+	UnrestrictedAddrs      []crypto.Address `json:"unrestricted_addrs" yaml:"unrestricted_addrs"`
 }

 // NewParams creates a new Params object


This function is unused

feat: lock token transfer and parameter module

2279644

github-actions bot assigned piux2 Nov 21, 2024

github-actions bot added 🧾 package/realm Tag used for new Realms or Packages. 📦 🤖 gnovm Issues or PRs gnovm related 📦 🌐 tendermint v2 Issues or PRs tm2 related 📦 ⛰️ gno.land Issues or PRs gno.land package related labels Nov 21, 2024

chores: ufmt

c293926

zivkovicmilos requested review from zivkovicmilos and moul November 21, 2024 10:48

Kouteki added the in focus Core team is prioritizing this work label Nov 21, 2024

zivkovicmilos added this to the 🚀 Mainnet launch milestone Nov 21, 2024

Kouteki linked an issue Nov 25, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request

Global GNOT lock #2980

Open

zivkovicmilos requested changes Nov 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: lock token transfer and parameter module #3176

feat: lock token transfer and parameter module #3176

piux2 commented Nov 21, 2024

codecov bot commented Nov 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

zivkovicmilos left a comment

zivkovicmilos Nov 25, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 25, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 25, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 25, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 25, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 26, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 26, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 26, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 26, 2024

zivkovicmilos Nov 26, 2024

		stdout '(0 uint64)'


		## vote unlock proposal with unrestricted account test1

feat: lock token transfer and parameter module #3176

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: lock token transfer and parameter module #3176

Conversation

piux2 commented Nov 21, 2024

Context for Locking Token Transfer

Here are some implementation details

Main Idea Behind the Alternative Approach To implement parameter module ( Discussion)

codecov bot commented Nov 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

zivkovicmilos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov bot commented Nov 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading