Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FIP Discussion: Correct Quality Calculation on Expiration #184

Closed
kaitlin-beegle opened this issue Sep 29, 2021 · 5 comments
Closed

FIP Discussion: Correct Quality Calculation on Expiration #184

kaitlin-beegle opened this issue Sep 29, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
FIP0021 Links an existing discussion item to an existing FIP.

Comments

@kaitlin-beegle
Copy link
Contributor

kaitlin-beegle commented Sep 29, 2021

[Adding issue as a placeholder for community discussion on behalf of FIP authors]

Simple Summary

Sector quality is defined as a spacetime average of the quality of the deals stored in the sector. The current protocol implementation does not work as expected when sectors are extended because deal spacetime is overcounted. This leads to minor incentive issues. This FIP fixes the discrepancy.

Abstract

DealWeight and VerifiedDealWeight in a sector's past is no longer included in the quality calculation for the extended sector. Instead the past spacetime of the sectors is "spent" and only the remaining deal spacetime of the sector's original life is counted.

To avoid extending the market actor interface for a small change this FIP proposes getting an approximate value for the remaining spacetime of deals and verified deals. A good approximation is to multiply deal weight by the fraction of sector lifetime remaining.

(See link to full FIP draft here.)

CC FIP authors: @Stebalien, @ZX, @ZenGround0

@kaitlin-beegle kaitlin-beegle added Enhancement FIP0021 Links an existing discussion item to an existing FIP. labels Sep 29, 2021
@ZenGround0
Copy link
Contributor

The title of this issue indicates the wrong fip. It should be "Correct quality calculation on expiration" instead of the "Add return value to WithdrawBalance"

@kaitlin-beegle kaitlin-beegle changed the title FIP Discussion: Add Return Value to WithdrawBalance FIP Discussion: Correct Quality Calculation on Expiration Sep 29, 2021
@kaitlin-beegle
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ZenGround0 good catch; copy+pasted from the wrong FIP. Updated!

@xinaxu
Copy link

xinaxu commented Oct 6, 2021

The verified deal requries 10x initial pledge. (See https://spec.filecoin.io/#section-systems.filecoin_mining.miner_collaterals.initial-pledge-collateral).
Now with correct quality calculation on/after expiration, will the excessive initial pledge collateral be returned and if so how

@ZenGround0
Copy link
Contributor

This FIP does not add any new features to sector extension recalculating IP. IP remains unchanged before and after extension as is the case now for all sectors. Since the verified deals in the sector should all be finished by the first expiration if pledge is constraining onboarding then it seems that a good strategy is to let these sectors expire without extension and seal a new CC sector with lower pledge instead.

FYI @zixuanzh

@kaitlin-beegle
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing due to FIP acceptance!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
FIP0021 Links an existing discussion item to an existing FIP.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants