With Altair, beacon chain genesis is long behind us. Nevertheless, the ability to spin-up testnets is useful in all sorts of scenarios, so the Altair spec retains genesis functionality, now called initialisation.
The following parameters refer to the actual mainnet beacon chain genesis and I'll explain them in that context. When starting up new testnets, these will of course be changed. For example, see the configuration file for the Prater testnet.
MIN_GENESIS_ACTIVE_VALIDATOR_COUNT is the minimum number of full validator stakes that must have been deposited before the beacon chain can start producing blocks. The number is chosen to ensure a degree of security. It allows for four 128 member committees per slot, rather than the 64 committees per slot eventually desired to support fully operational data shards. Fewer validators means higher rewards per validator, so it is designed to attract early participants to get things bootstrapped.
MIN_GENESIS_ACTIVE_VALIDATOR_COUNT used to be much higher (65,536 = 2 million Ether staked), but was reduced when
MIN_GENESIS_TIME, below, was added.
In the actual event of beacon chain genesis, there were 21,063 participating validators, comfortably exceeding the minimum necessary count.
MIN_GENESIS_TIME is the earliest date that the beacon chain can start.
MIN_GENESIS_TIME allows us to start the chain with fewer validators than was previously thought necessary. The previous plan was to start the chain as soon as there were
MIN_GENESIS_ACTIVE_VALIDATOR_COUNT validators staked. But there were concerns that with a lowish initial validator count, a single entity could form the majority of them and then act to prevent other validators from entering (a "gatekeeper attack"). A minimum genesis time allows time for all those who wish to make deposits to do so before they could be excluded by a gatekeeper attack.
The beacon chain actually started at 12:00:23 UTC on the 1st of December 2020. The extra 23 seconds comes from the timestamp of the first Eth1 block to meet the genesis criteria, block 11320899. I like to think of this as a little remnant of proof of work forever embedded in the beacon chain's history.
Unlike Ethereum 1.0, the beacon chain gives in-protocol versions to its forks. See the Version custom type for more explanation.
GENESIS_FORK_VERSION is the fork version the beacon chain starts with at its "genesis" event: the point at which the chain first starts producing blocks. In Altair, this value is used only when computing the cryptographic domain for deposit messages, which are valid across all forks.
ALTAIR_FORK_VERSION is defined elsewhere.
GENESIS_DELAY is a grace period to allow nodes and node operators time to prepare for the genesis event. The genesis event cannot occur before
MIN_GENESIS_TIME. If there are not
MIN_GENESIS_ACTIVE_VALIDATOR_COUNT registered validators sufficiently in advance of
MIN_GENESIS_TIME, then Genesis will occur
GENESIS_DELAY seconds after enough validators have been registered.
Seven days' notice was regarded as sufficient to allow client dev teams time to make a release once the genesis parameters were known, and for node operators to upgrade to that release. And, of course, to organise some parties. It was increased from 2 days over time due to lessons learned on some of the pre-genesis testnets.
||Eth1 blocks||~8 hours|
Network delays are the main limiting factor in shortening the slot length. Three communication activities need to be accomplished within a slot, and it is supposed that four seconds is enough for the vast majority of nodes to have participated in each:
- Blocks are proposed at the start of a slot and should have propagated to most of the network within the first four seconds.
- At four seconds into a slot, committee members create and broadcast attestations, including attesting to this slot's block. During the next four seconds, these attestations are collected by aggregators in each committee.
- At eight seconds into the slot, the aggregators broadcast their aggregate attestations which then have four seconds to reach the validator who is proposing the next block.
This slot length has to account for shard blocks as well in later phases. There was some discussion around having the beacon chain and shards on differing cadences, but the latest sharding design tightly couples the beacon chain with the shards. Shard blocks under this design will be much larger, which led to the extension of the slot to 12 seconds.
There is a general intention to shorten the slot time in future, perhaps to [8 seconds](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/issues/1890#issue-638024803, if it proves possible to do this in practice. Or perhaps to lengthen it to 16 seconds.
The assumed block interval on the Eth1 chain, used in conjunction with
ETH1_FOLLOW_DISTANCE when considering blocks on the Eth1 chain, either at genesis, or when voting on the deposit contract state.
The average Eth1 block time since January 2020 has actually been nearer 13 seconds, but never mind. The net effect is that we will be going a little deeper back in the Eth1 chain than
ETH1_FOLLOW_DISTANCE would suggest, which ought to be safer.
A validator can stop participating once it has made it through the exit queue. However, its funds remain locked for the duration of
MIN_VALIDATOR_WITHDRAWABILITY_DELAY. Initially, this is to allow some time for any slashable behaviour to be detected and reported so that the validator can still be penalised (in which case the validator's withdrawable time is pushed
EPOCHS_PER_SLASHINGS_VECTOR into the future). When data shards are introduced this delay will also allow for shard rewards to be credited and for proof of custody challenges to be mounted.
Note that, for the time being, there is no mechanism to withdraw a validator's balance in any case. Nonetheless, being in a "withdrawable" state means that a validator has now fully exited from the protocol.
This really anticipates the implementation of data shards. The idea is that it's bad for the stability of longer-lived committees if validators can appear and disappear very rapidly. Therefore, a validator cannot initiate a voluntary exit until
SHARD_COMMITTEE_PERIOD epochs after it is activated. Note that it could still be ejected by slashing before this time.
This is used to calculate the minimum depth of block on the Ethereum 1 chain that can be considered by the Eth2 chain: it applies to the Genesis process and the processing of deposits by validators. The Eth1 chain depth is estimated by multiplying this value by the target average Eth1 block time,
The value of
ETH1_FOLLOW_DISTANCE is not based on the expected depth of any reorgs of the Eth1 chain, which are rarely if ever more than 2-3 blocks deep. It is about providing time to respond to an incident on the Eth1 chain such as a consensus failure between clients.
This parameter was increased from 1024 to 2048 blocks for the beacon chain mainnet, to allow devs more time to respond if there were any trouble on the Eth1 chain.
If a validator's effective balance falls to 16 Ether or below then it is exited from the system. This is most likely to happen as a result of the "inactivity leak", which gradually reduces the balances of inactive validators in order to maintain the liveness of the beacon chain.
Note that the dependence on effective balance means that the validator is queued for ejection as soon as its actual balance falls to 16.75 Ether.
Validators are allowed to exit the system and cease validating, and new validators may apply to join at any time. For interesting reasons, a design decision was made to apply a rate-limit to entries (activations) and exits. Basically, it is important in proof of stake protocols that the validator set not change too quickly.
In the normal case, a validator is able to exit fairly swiftly: it just needs to wait
MAX_SEED_LOOKAHEAD (currently four) epochs. However, if there are large numbers of validators wishing to exit at the same time, a queue forms with a limited number of exits allowed per epoch. The minimum number of exits per epoch (the minimum "churn") is
MIN_PER_EPOCH_CHURN_LIMIT, so that validators can always eventually exit. The actual allowed churn per epoch is calculated in conjunction with
The same applies to new validator activations, once a validator has been marked as eligible for activation.
In concrete terms, this means that up to four validators can enter or exit the active validator set each epoch (900 per day) until we have 327,680 active validators, at which point the limit rises to five.
The rate at which validators can exit is strongly related to the concept of weak subjectivity, and the weak subjectivity period.
This is used in conjunction with
MIN_PER_EPOCH_CHURN_LIMIT to calculate the actual number of validator exits and activations allowed per epoch. The number of exits allowed is
max(MIN_PER_EPOCH_CHURN_LIMIT, n // CHURN_LIMIT_QUOTIENT), where
n is the number of active validators. The same applies to activations.
||score points per inactive epoch|
||score points per leak-free epoch|
If the beacon chain hasn't finalised an epoch for longer than
MIN_EPOCHS_TO_INACTIVITY_PENALTY epochs, then it enters "leak" mode. In this mode, any validator that does not vote (or votes for an incorrect target) is penalised an amount each epoch of
(effective_balance * inactivity_score) // (INACTIVITY_SCORE_BIAS * INACTIVITY_PENALTY_QUOTIENT_ALTAIR). See
INACTIVITY_PENALTY_QUOTIENT_ALTAIR for discussion of the inactivity leak itself.
inactivity-score is new in Altair. During Phase 0, inactivity penalties were an increasing global amount applied to all validators that did not participate in an epoch, regardless of their individual track records of participation. So a validator that was able to participate for a significant fraction of the time nevertheless could be quite severely penalised due to the growth of the per-epoch inactivity penalty. Vitalik gives a simplified example: "if fully [off]line validators get leaked and lose 40% of their balance, someone who has been trying hard to stay online and succeeds at 90% of their duties would still lose 4% of their balance. Arguably this is unfair."
In addition, if many validators are able to participate intermittently, it indicates that whatever event has befallen the chain is potentially recoverable (unlike a permanent network partition, or a super-majority network fork, for example). The inactivity leak is intended to bring finality to irrecoverable situations, so prolonging the time to finality if it's not irrecoverable is likely a good thing.
With Altair, each validator has an individual inactivity score in the beacon state which is updated by
process_inactivity_updates() as follows.
- Every epoch, irrespective of the inactivity leak,
- decrease the score by one when the validator makes a correct timely target vote, and
- increase the score by
- When not in an inactivity leak
- decrease every validator's score by
- decrease every validator's score by
There is a floor of zero on the score. So, outside a leak, validators' scores will rapidly return to zero and stay there, since
INACTIVITY_SCORE_RECOVERY_RATE is greater than
When in a leak, if is the participation rate between and , and is
INACTIVITY_SCORE_BIAS, then the expected score after epochs is . For this is . So a validator that is participating 80% of the time or more can maintain a score that is bounded near zero. With less than 80% average participation, its score will increase unboundedly.
When not in an inactivity leak, validators' inactivity scores are reduced by
+ 1 per epoch when they make a timely target vote, and by
INACTIVITY_SCORE_BIAS when they don't. So, even for non-performing validators, scores decrease three times faster than they increase.
The new scoring system means that some validators will continue to be penalised due to the leak, even after finalisation starts again. This is intentional. When the leak causes the beacon chain to finalise, at that point we have just 2/3 of the stake online. If we immediately stop the leak (as we used to), then the amount of stake online would remain close to 2/3 and the chain would be vulnerable to flipping in and out of finality as small numbers of validators come and go. We saw this behaviour on some of the testnets prior to launch. Continuing the leak after finalisation serves to increase the balances of participating validators to greater than 2/3, providing a margin that should help to prevent such behaviour.
See the section on the Inactivity Leak for some more analysis of the inactivity score and some graphs of its effect.