Proposal on the extension of the V1 proof sector lifetime

[deltazxm]

Summary It is currently not possible to extend the life cycle of the V1 proof sectors. This has caused a huge loss to the miners who sealed the V1 proof sectors in early days. Sealed sectors should only take windowPoSt challenges, security issues would not be involved. So we propose the V1 proof sectors' life cycle could be extended.

If the life cycle of these sectors cannot be extended, there will be a lot of sealing computation resources wasted to seal these sectors again. If miners have to seal sectors again, it will take much more collaterals and gas. More messages will make the chain congested, and other miners will have to pay more high gas fees too.

If the life cycle of V1 proof sectors is set to 180 days, miners would experience horrible loss and may cause even greater losses due to gas fee issues.

Improvement Goal Allow the life cycle of V1 proof sectors to be able to extend like v8 proof sectors. Please see the detailed improvement plan: [https://github.com/filecoin-project/specs-actors/pull/1310]

[coder-lb]

This is a good proposal. If V1 proof sectors can't be extended, many sealing machine resources will be wasted to seal sectors again. Filecoin should be a project with less energy consumed, then it will be more competitive in storage markets.

[coder-lb]

If a huge number of sectors can't be extended, there will be several side effects. If the miners seal sectors again, it will take much more time, and much more gas. More messages will make the chain congested, and other miners will pay more high gas fees, too.

[fmtmbs]

Totally agree to extend life cycle of v1 proof sectors.

[flyworker]

If the purpose is for better storage market, instead of extend, it should be upgrade sectors with data deals, otherwise those sectors are useless in storage market.

[ElecRoastChicken]

This is definitely a good suggestion for network development. At present, the high gas cost is due to the congestion of message pool. If V1 sector cannot be extended life cycle will lead to quite a number of re-sealing, which will bring a new round of congestion peak, that is not conducive to the reduction of gas cost, but also bring pressure (can be avoidable, just extend life cycle) to the network.

[steven004]

@deltazxm good proposal to discuss.

I would suggest adding a Motivation section and a Security Consideration section. The motivation is clear that there are half (possibly more) of power are sealed using V1, and massive computing resources consumed for that. To allow the extension of V1 sectors is environment friendly way to keep the power of Filecoin. In addition, it is also good to maintain Filecoin's stability.

However, there might be security concerns, which is not very clear to many miners. To me, I could understand why upgrading from V1 to 1.1 for security issue, but it is more impact on the sealing process, but how's its impact to verification. @nicola may add more to this.

[deltazxm]

If impact to verification.Then the current v1 sector also has security problem.So,I think there is no problem with windowPOST.

[kacee-song]

This is by design, motivated by security considerations for the V1 proof.

[f8-ptrk]

If the life cycle of these sectors cannot be extended, there will be a lot of sealing computation resources wasted to seal these sectors again. If miners have to seal sectors again, it will take much more collaterals and gas. More messages will make the chain congested, and other miners will have to pay more high gas fees too.

this is just not true. this would imply that right now sectors are not being sealed because of existing v1 sectors.

if those sectors expire the baseline will change, that's the first thing. and then resources that would be used for sealing anyways would be used to "reseal" those sectors. i doubt that there will be an overall increase in CC sector sealing activity if we just let those sectors expire.

[xiaoliwe]

If the life cycle of these sectors cannot be extended, there will be a lot of sealing computation resources wasted to seal these sectors again. If miners have to seal sectors again, it will take much more collaterals and gas. More messages will make the chain congested, and other miners will have to pay more high gas fees too.

this is just not true. this would imply that right now sectors are not being sealed because of existing v1 sectors.

if those sectors expire the baseline will change, that's the first thing. and then resources that would be used for sealing anyways would be used to "reseal" those sectors. i doubt that there will be an overall increase in CC sector sealing activity if we just let those sectors expire.

"reseal" still take much collaterals and gas? ?

[xiaoliwe]

If the life cycle of these sectors cannot be extended, there will be a lot of sealing computation resources wasted to seal these sectors again. If miners have to seal sectors again, it will take much more collaterals and gas. More messages will make the chain congested, and other miners will have to pay more high gas fees too.

this is just not true. this would imply that right now sectors are not being sealed because of existing v1 sectors.

if those sectors expire the baseline will change, that's the first thing. and then resources that would be used for sealing anyways would be used to "reseal" those sectors. i doubt that there will be an overall increase in CC sector sealing activity if we just let those sectors expire.

"reseal" still take much collaterals and gas? ?

[f8-ptrk]

"reseal" still take much collaterals and gas? ?

reseal here means sealing other sectors to replace them. you have to keep in mind that collateral and fees for most, if not all, v1 sectors were paid with testnet FIL - at a market price of exactly 0. so no one ever paid for them. the reason that this issue exists is not to protect the network or keep the baseFee low - but to go on earning real FIL with sectors that were paid for with testnet FIL - and as you can imagine they have a way higher ROI than sectors that needed to be sealed with real FIL.

[deltazxm]

"reseal" still take much collaterals and gas? ?

reseal here means sealing other sectors to replace them. you have to keep in mind that collateral and fees for most, if not all, v1 sectors were paid with testnet FIL - at a market price of exactly 0. so no one ever paid for them. the reason that this issue exists is not to protect the network or keep the baseFee low - but to go on earning real FIL with sectors that were paid for with testnet FIL - and as you can imagine they have a way higher ROI than sectors that needed to be sealed with real FIL.

All sectors before November 26 have this problem.Not only SR.

[cwhiggins]

Sectors are meant to expire. Miners cannot control the length of time a client makes a deal for. There is no reason to extend these sectors. We will all lose power, yes, that is how the system is designed.

[kaptinlin]

I don't think it's good idea extend life cycle of v1 proof sectors. A lot of v1 sectors are SP1 sectors, some of them are not stable and it should be termination for secure reason.

[gdkiddd]

I don't think it's good idea extend life cycle of v1 proof sectors. A lot of v1 sectors are SP1 sectors, some of them are not stable and it should be termination for secure reason.

what kind of "not stable"?

[gdkiddd]

"reseal" still take much collaterals and gas? ?

reseal here means sealing other sectors to replace them. you have to keep in mind that collateral and fees for most, if not all, v1 sectors were paid with testnet FIL - at a market price of exactly 0. so no one ever paid for them. the reason that this issue exists is not to protect the network or keep the baseFee low - but to go on earning real FIL with sectors that were paid for with testnet FIL - and as you can imagine they have a way higher ROI than sectors that needed to be sealed with real FIL.

The rewards obtained in the testnet are used to pay those miners who have made great contributions to Filecoin. They are willing to follow Filecoin when the mainnet is uncertain, and spend a lot of time and money on machines, labor costs, operation and maintenance. , Laid the foundation for the successful launch of the mainnet, so the testnet coin is surely valuable.

Now these sectors cannot be extended, it means that it will cost 150% more pledge cost and gas to reseal it. This is unnecessary and unreasonable. No one has specifically explained why it has affected the security and stability of the mainnet. Should such a decision on a decentralized network not be more cautious in soliciting community suggestions?

[f8-ptrk]

The rewards obtained in the testnet are used to pay those miners who have made great contributions to Filecoin. They are willing to follow Filecoin when the mainnet is uncertain, and spend a lot of time and money on machines, labor costs, operation and maintenance. , Laid the foundation for the successful launch of the mainnet, so the testnet coin is surely valuable.

neither pledge nor sealing costs of these sectors were part of the rewards. the testnet coin shouldn't have had any value at all. not then, not now, not ever.

Now these sectors cannot be extended, it means that it will cost 150% more pledge cost and gas to reseal it. This is unnecessary and unreasonable. No one has specifically explained why it has affected the security and stability of the mainnet. Should such a decision on a decentralized network not be more cautious in soliciting community suggestions?

not "now" - they never were able to be extended later.

• sp1 sectors cost 0% and got 100% of the power.
• others pay 100% for 100% of the power.

we cannot cement this inequality forever on the chain. the stability will suffer. cannot talk about security - i assume that if there are issues no one will tell you, for obvious reasons and we just let them phase out.

[gdkiddd]

not "now" - they never were able to be extended later.

• sp1 sectors cost 0% and got 100% of the power.
• others pay 100% for 100% of the power.

we cannot cement this inequality forever on the chain. the stability will suffer. cannot talk about security - i assume that if there are issues no one will tell you, for obvious reasons and we just let them phase out.

Sectors before November 24 will not to be extended, but between October 15 and November 24, we have purchased a large amount of real coins to seal data, these r "real" sectors! why these sectors will now also be "killed"?

[coder-lb]

not "now" - they never were able to be extended later.

• sp1 sectors cost 0% and got 100% of the power.
• others pay 100% for 100% of the power.

we cannot cement this inequality forever on the chain. the stability will suffer. cannot talk about security - i assume that if there are issues no one will tell you, for obvious reasons and we just let them phase out.

Sectors before November 24 will not to be extended, but between October 15 and November 24, we have purchased a large amount of real coins to seal data, these r "real" sectors! why these sectors will now also be "killed"?

Agree. At least sectors between Oct 15 and Nov 24 should be extended.

[kaptinlin]

It was not a good idea to shift the SP1 sector to the mainnet at that time. These sectors should be expired. It's not fair to the new miners.

Now that big miners have more and more advantages, new miners have to spend more to join the network. This is not conducive to decentralization.

[thecreation]

The life cycle of these v1 sectors should not be extended in order to increase the profits of big miners. They have acquired a lot. There should be more opportunities for new miners and small miners to join the network.

[fmtmbs]

It was not a good idea to shift the SP1 sector to the mainnet at that time. These sectors should be expired. It's not fair to the new miners.

Now that big miners have more and more advantages, new miners have to spend more to join the network. This is not conducive to decentralization.

At least sectors between Oct 15 and Nov 24 should be extended.

[deltazxm]

At least sectors between Oct 15 and Nov 24 should be extended.

[steven004]

The only strong reason for objection of extension is security problem, what is that? Is it that the bug in previous proof makes it proving faster? I would believe that is still safe for years before the hardware power is improved significantly for tens of times. If the concern is about related to this, how about allowing one time for perhaps one or two years?

Or any other one not unveiled?

[nicola]

I wrote a comment here a while ago: https://github.com/filecoin-project/specs-actors/issues/1309#issuecomment-758715926

There is a risk that a year+ from now, with highly pipelined custom hardware (less likely to be software - but not impossible), one may able to avoid storing 100% of the sector and still succeed at WindowPoSt.**

As we come closer to these sectors' expiration (most are a ~year from now), depending on (1) what percentage of power these sectors sum up to, (2) what is the state of the art of ASICs and Proof of Space software, the community should decide what to do with those sectors.

I would not recommend to allow for sector extension right now.

**: note that Filecoin will still be secured by the collateral of these sectors

[deltazxm]

So the conclusion will not be extension?There are different voices in the community.We want extension the sector.At least sectors between Oct 15 and Nov 24. @nicola

[xiaoliwe]

So the conclusion will not be extension?There are different voices in the community.We want extension the sector.At least sectors between Oct 15 and Nov 24. @nicola

Oct 5 ~ Nov 24 ?
It refer to 2020 ?

[deltazxm]

Yes,After mainnet

[flyworker]

if keep the power between Oct 5 ~ Nov 24, does that mean only the sectors before this period is insecure?

No ,if you want to keep , keep all of them, if it is expired due to security, expired all of them.

[kaptinlin]

Before sealing v1 sectors, this rule has been defined. You cannot modify the rules of v1 just because v2 and v3 allow extensions. If this is the case, if there is v4 later, if there are new rules, should v1, v2, and v3 be adjusted? Since these v1 sectors are voluntarily sealed, we cannot ask for changed because we want the same rules as v2、v3. They just change. And we have already enjoyed the benefits of v1. If allowed, it is not conducive to subsequent participants.

[steven004]

I wrote a comment here a while ago: filecoin-project/specs-actors#1309 (comment)

Thanks @nicola , this was mentioned earlier. There is a risk that a year+ from now makes me think about another option, how about just limit the overall expiration time for V1, e.g. only 540 days allowed for V1, and 5 years (the current setting) for other versions. This makes things more fair, since some of the v1 sectors with 540 day expiration setting, and others less.

[f8-ptrk]

letting them expire will most likely affect just a minority of miners and a tiny minority of sectors. if they are a known security risk in 1 year they should get eliminated as soon as possible to not have that thread vector around for longer time. we should have kicked them as soon as the vulnerability became known, called it "tough shit" and moved on...

[thecreation]

We already know that these sectors have unsafe factors, why not just let it go? Making the entire network healthier is the primary decision factor. And it did not harm anyone's interests. When sealing v1 sectors, miners knew that these sectors were about to expire. And most of the sectors in it are free. I cannot understand the practice of many big miners in order to improve their benefits regardless of the health of the entire network.

[xiachongbuyubing]

+1

[Bruce2020FIL]

我支持V1到期后续期，老胡你要有良心啊。不要做没心没肺家伙。YOU KNOW????

[jennijuju]

我支持V1到期后续期，老胡你要有良心啊。不要做没心没肺家伙。YOU KNOW????

Personal attack is not welcomed.

[jennijuju]

Another option the community should investigate together is whether its possible to upgrade v1 sectors to v1.1 sector so that they are more secure and can be extended.

[deltazxm]

Another option the community should investigate together is whether its possible to upgrade v1 sectors to v1.1 sector so that they are more secure and can be extended.

If possible, this is the best practice.

[f8-ptrk]

put a deal inside and there you go.

[Fatman13]

There is a risk that a year+ from now, with highly pipelined custom hardware (less likely to be software - but not impossible), one may able to avoid storing 100% of the sector and still succeed at WindowPoSt.**

Every encryption/proof created ever has security problems. Question is, is it economically viable to exploit such issue? Will institutions (like Google) around the world use its quantum computing power to crack Satoshi's wallet? If they were to invoke the nuclear option, BTC would be plummeting. Not sure if there exists people outside of the community who are well-funded and determined to develop ASIC machines and destroy filecoin. Or maybe such group of people do exist?

[Xman-destroyer2021]

An extension was agreed, and that time is now approaching.If lengthen, after waiting for network scale to grow, drop this part to calculate force again, the likely influence won't be so big.In the early days of the network, if most of the computing power falls off, it won't be friendly to all miners. If we are worried about network security, we can consider whether we can provide taps from the foundation or F099 to increase the computational power for these miners, otherwise we may pay three times the cost at that time.

[danilowhk]

The Sector from testnet doesn't have any deals and doesn't help in any way to keep the network healthy, on the contrary, it brings risk because of the V1 exploits and is almost like a barrier to new miners since it's a huge disadvantage.

[ArthurWang1255]

V1 proof sectors deserve extension. First, these V1 proof sectors are not "free", there are thousands of servers maintaining them (I doubt the intentions of those ones who are not supporting this proposal, early miners put in money and time before others doing so to build filecoin system and don't deserve a fair sector? ). Secondly, the large fluctuation of storage volume itself is a security risk to the filecoin network. In the end, what we are pursuing is a larger scale of storage and a moving forward consensus. Giving the V1 proof sectors extension they deserve and let the community put the eyes on the future.

[ArthurWang1255]

V1 proof sectors deserve extension. First, these V1 proof sectors are not "free", there are thousands of servers maintaining them (I doubt the intentions of those ones who are not supporting this proposal, early miners put in money and time before others doing so to build filecoin system and don't deserve a fair sector? ). Secondly, the large fluctuation of storage volume itself is a security risk to the filecoin network. In the end, what we are pursuing is a larger scale of storage and a moving forward consensus. Giving the V1 proof sectors extension they deserve and let the community put the eyes on the future.

Only if fairness is not important in the community and system, then big miners will take over the right to speak. It's harmful to the community and the whole ecosystem of filecoin.

[jennijuju]

Allow v1 sectors to have 540 days in epoch as max sector life time was proposed in fip-0014 as one of the options to this topic. The proposal is still in DRAFT and the community should work on the product consideration, detailed security consideration and other sections before it can move forward to the next stage.

[f8-ptrk]

there is still no argument for how this improves the network. if letting these sectors expire now, as some say here, will create problems - how are these problems different in now+x days?

except adding to the risk of these sectors being "broken" by hardware/software implementations this FIP is doing nothing of value for the network.

[f8-ptrk]

V1 type sectors deserved to be extended as 540days. It's fair for the miners who sealed it and stress tested the whole network earlier to make the Filecoin network what it is today.

i am sorry, but that is not an argument. why should we keep a security risk (for all people involved!!!) on the chain for the "benefit" of a few miners? to make the network more secure for everyone we should terminate these sectors forcefully as soon as possible. keeping them longer then necessary (and to be straight forward here: no one needs those sectors! they are just "another sector"... can be replaced with new ones at all times) is not fair to everyone involved with filecoin, we deserve security risks to be eliminated as soon as they are known!

[coder-lb]

V1 proof sectors are not free, especially between Oct 15 and Nov 24. Miners who spent a lot of FILs to pledge between Oct 15 and Nov 24 will be long term players and the most loyal supporters of the Filecoin ecosystem, since they were willing to invest real money in a project just started. At the beginning of mainnet, many other miners dare not seal and they kept on waiting, until they were sure that they could get enough benefits. So we could see the gas fee was low right after the mainnet launched, and got very high in December. This is normal, but it also shows that early miners can bring better loyalty to the network. Of course, None of the above is an excuse for security. But with current hardware, it is very hard to use the previous bug to pass WindowPoSt without store all of data now. I agree with @steven004, probably we can extend the sectors to 540 days. It will still be secure. Some miners set the expired days to less than 540 days only because they thought it was more flexible. Who knew the sectors would be treated selectively so that it could not be extended In Oct? Who knew the gas fee would be very high so that re-sealing these sectors would cost more in Oct? The security of Filecoin requires people from the entire ecosystem to work out ways and maintain them together, not only just avoiding a possible issue in the future. With more miners and more power, Filecoin will be more secure.

[f8-ptrk]

here are the arguments i see so far pro/contra implementing this FIP.

pro implementing:

• financial advantage for those miners who have large amounts of these sectors sealed

contra implementing:

• financial disadvantage for miners without large amounts of these sectors sealed
• keeping a security risk on the chain for ~360 more days

there is no argument so far how implementing this would improve filecoin - in my eyes.