HIP-173: Opt-in merged scheduling Source

AuthorMichael Tinker, Anirudh Ghanta
Discussions-Tohttps://github.com/hashgraph/hedera-improvement-proposal/discussions/172
StatusAccepted
Needs Council ApprovalYes
Review period endsTue, 23 Nov 2021 07:00:00 +0000
TypeStandards Track
CategoryService
Created2021-10-18
Updated2021-10-18

Abstract

If a ScheduleCreate tries to re-create an existing scheduled transaction, the network rejects it with IDENTICAL_SCHEDULE_ALREADY_CREATED. (Recall that two scheduled transactions are identical if they match on three fields: The scheduledTransactionBody, the memo and the adminKey.)

This behavior is a reasonable—albeit conservative—default, since there is always a chance that the involved parties really wanted two separate transactions, and only “collided” by accident.

However, in some cases the scheduling parties can avoid accidental collisions. In such a case, when two or more parties submit ScheduleCreates with the same transaction, the network can better serve their needs by “merging” all the provided signatures into the same scheduled transaction.

In this HIP we propose a new protobuf field ScheduleCreateTransactionBody#merge_with_identical_schedule which, if set to true, switches the network’s behavior to this more friendly “merged” scheduling. The only exception is to be if the existing schedule has an explicit payerAccountID different than the effective payerAccountID for the ScheduleCreate; then the network will fail the ScheduleCreate with IDENTICAL_SCHEDULE_ALREADY_EXISTS_WITH_DIFFERENT_PAYER.

Motivation

Suppose a validator network is monitoring a stream of events, where each event e is uniquely identified by a hash He, and should trigger the scheduling of a single related transaction Xe that needs a majority of the validators’ signatures to execute.

Suppose also that the validators all set memo=He when trying to schedule transaction Xe. Then by the uniqueness of the memos, there is no risk that two identical ScheduleCreates are actually intended for two different events.

Nonetheless, with current network behavior, only the first validator to submit the ScheduleCreate for event e will have a “normal” workflow. All the other validators will receive IDENTICAL_SCHEDULE_ALREADY_CREATED, and need to submit a second ScheduleSign transaction to attach their signature to the scheduled Xe transaction.

This is at best inconvenient, as the network is enforcing protection the validator network simply does not need.

Rationale

Improve the user experience when scheduling transactions on the network, especially in the use case of a validator network as above.

Specification

This HIP extends the ScheduleCreateTransationBody as follows,

message ScheduleCreateTransactionBody {
  SchedulableTransactionBody scheduledTransactionBody = 1;
  string memo = 2;
  Key adminKey = 3;
  AccountID payerAccountID = 4;

  /** 
   * Controls how the network will behave when there is an identical transaction already scheduled (but not yet executed).
   * 
   * If merge_with_identical_schedule=true, when this ScheduleCreate "collides" with an existing scheduled transaction, it 
   * will behave as a ScheduleSign for that schedule UNLESS the existing schedule includes an explicit payerAccountID different 
   * than the effective payerAccountID for this ScheduleCreate. In this case, it will resolve to 
   * IDENTICAL_SCHEDULE_ALREADY_EXISTS_WITH_DIFFERENT_PAYER and have no effects on the existing schedule.
   * 
   * If merge_with_identical_schedule=false, this ScheduleCreate will resolve to IDENTICAL_SCHEDULE_ALREADY_CREATED, and the 
   * receipt will contain the id of the existing schedule entity.
   */
  bool merge_with_identical_schedule = 5;
}

It stipulates the network’s behavior for a ScheduleCreate then match the comment above.

Backwards Compatibility

This HIP does not make any breaking changes. Clients that keep using the current protobufs will keep the same semantics for their ScheduleCreate transactions, since the default value of the merge_with_identical_schedule flag will be false.

Security Implications

We do not see any security implications for this change. If a client such as a validator network opts-in to merged scheduling, but cannot ensure duplicate ScheduleCreate transactions are always functionally equivalent, it could suffer a correctness failure. But this would be a form of user error, not a problem with the network.

How to Teach This

In one sentence: “If you opt-in to merged scheduling, your ScheduleCreate will turn into a ScheduleSign when somebody else has already scheduled your transaction.”

Reference Implementation

Ongoing.

  • For protobufs changes, please follow this issue.
  • For node software changes, please follow this issue.

Rejected Ideas

We briefly considered changing the default network behavior to “merged” scheduling, instead of introducing a new field to the ScheduleCreateTransactionBody. But not all use cases will have operational properties that make merged scheduling a safe default.

Open Issues

We are not aware of any issues blocking implementation at this time.

References

Not applicable.

Copyright/license

This document is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 – see LICENSE or (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)

Citation

Please cite this document as: