|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: Weekly Summary - 2025-04-14 |
| 3 | +authors: |
| 4 | +- will |
| 5 | +tags: [progress, update, weekly] |
| 6 | +--- |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +This week, the team made significant progress in various areas, resulting in improved simulations, better analysis workflow, and key findings from the Edinburgh workshop. |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +### Simulation improvements |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +#### Haskell simulation |
| 13 | +- Completed the first draft of new mini protocols for leios diffusion |
| 14 | + - See `simulation/docs/network-spec` for the protocol details, modeled after BlockFetch and node-to-node Tx-Submission ones from ouroboros-network. |
| 15 | + - IB-relay, EB-relay, Vote-relay for header diffusion and body (for IB and EB) announcements. |
| 16 | + - IB-fetch, EB-fetch, for body diffusion. |
| 17 | + - CatchUp protocol for older blocks. |
| 18 | +- Renamed `short-leios` command to `leios` since it covers full variant too. |
| 19 | + - `short-leios` is kept as alias for compatibility. |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +#### Rust simulation |
| 22 | +- Fixed conformance with shared trace format |
| 23 | +- Fixed bug with voting logic which was preventing EBs from receiving enough votes to get on-chain |
| 24 | +- Updated visualization to use smaller trace files, to prepare for hosting on docs site |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +### Revisions to cost dashboard |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +The [cost dashboard](https://leios.cardano-scaling.org/cost-estimator/) was updated with lower and more realistic IO estimates. |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +### Analysis of transaction lifecycle |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +The Jupyter notebook [Analysis of transaction lifecycle](analysis/tx-to-block.ipynb) estimates the delay imposed by each of the seven stages of Full Leios as a transaction moves from memory pool to being referenced by a Praos block. |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +The plot hints at the following: |
| 35 | +1. There seems little advantage to moving to stage lengths less than 10 slots. |
| 36 | +2. The number of shards should be kept small enough so that the IB rate per shard is high relative to the stage length. |
| 37 | +3. Low EB rates result in many orphaned IBs. |
| 38 | +4. Realistic parameter settings result in an approximately two-minute delay between transaction submission and its referencing by an RB. |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +Potential next steps: |
| 41 | +- Translating this model into Delta QSD, so that network effects can be included. |
| 42 | +- Compare this model's results to output of the Rust simulator. |
| 43 | +- Elaborate the model in order to represent the memory-pool and ledger variants under consideration. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +## Key findings from Edinburgh workshop recaps |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +Key discussions, decisions, and findings include: |
| 48 | +- Labeled UTXOs (explicit shards) vs accounts (implicit shards) approaches for ledger design. |
| 49 | +- Conformance testing strategies including QuickCheck dynamic and trace verification approaches. |
| 50 | +- Critical edge cases for user onboarding and system properties. |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +The team conducted a detailed analysis of Leios node costs across different TPS levels. Key findings include: |
| 53 | +- At 10 TPS: 1.8x increase in egress and 6x increase in compute compared to Praos |
| 54 | +- At 1K TPS: significant scaling improvements with better resource efficiency. |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +Recommendations for potential integration with Peras include optimizing the voting mechanism. |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +The team also discussed performance characteristics at both high and low throughput levels, held an in-depth discussion on optimistic ledger state references, and explored the potential of EB-DAG approach for achieving low latency while maintaining security. |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +## Detailed Edinburgh workshop highlights |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +The detailed Edinburgh workshop recaps have been made available, covering key discussions, decisions, and findings. |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +### Day 1 highlights |
| 65 | +- Explored ledger design options comparing labeled UTXOs (explicit shards) vs accounts (implicit shards) approaches |
| 66 | +- Discussed conformance testing strategies including QuickCheck dynamic and trace verification approaches |
| 67 | +- Analyzed critical edge cases for user onboarding and system properties. |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +### Day 2 highlights |
| 70 | +- Conducted a detailed analysis of Leios node costs across different TPS levels |
| 71 | +- Key findings on resource usage include: |
| 72 | + - At 10 TPS: 1.8x increase in egress and 6x increase in compute compared to Praos |
| 73 | + - At 1K TPS: significant scaling improvements with better resource efficiency |
| 74 | +- Provided recommendations for potential integration with Peras, particularly to optimize the voting mechanism |
| 75 | +- Discussed performance characteristics at both high and low throughput levels |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +### Day 3 highlights |
| 78 | +- Held an in-depth discussion on optimistic ledger state references |
| 79 | +- Explored three main approaches: |
| 80 | + 1. RB reference: highest security but highest latency |
| 81 | + 2. EB reference: balanced approach with medium security and latency |
| 82 | + 3. EB-DAG: advanced approach using directed acyclic graph structure |
| 83 | +- Key advantages of the EB-DAG approach: |
| 84 | + - Achieves low latency while maintaining security |
| 85 | + - Provides strong inclusion guarantees for EBs |
| 86 | + - Enables efficient state management and reconstruction |
| 87 | + - Creates a complete, verifiable chain history |
| 88 | +- Discussed implementation considerations for state management and block ordering under the EB-DAG model |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +For more information, please see the full workshop recaps in the [Leios documentation](https://github.com/input-output-hk/ouroboros-leios/tree/main/docs/workshop). |
0 commit comments