The goal of this RFC is to define the consensus algorithm used in Solana. This proposal covers a Proof of Stake (PoS) algorithm that leverages Proof of History (PoH). PoH is a permissionless clock for blockchain that is available before consensus. This PoS approach leverages PoH to make strong assumptions about time among partitions.
Nodes on the network can be "up" or "down". A node indicates it is up either by voting as a validator or by generating a PoH stream as the designated leader. Consensus is reached when a supermajority + 1 of the staked nodes have voted on the state of the network at a particular PoH tick count.
Nodes take turns being leader and generating the PoH that encodes state changes. The network can tolerate loss of connection to any leader by synthesizing what the leader ***would have generated*** had it been connected but not ingesting any state changes. The complexity of forks is thereby limited to a "there/not-there" skip list of branches that may arise on leader rotation periods boundaries.
When the `Slash` vote is processed, validators should lookup `PoH hash` at `PoH count` and compare it with the message. If they do not match, the stake at `stake public key` should be set to `0`.
The goal is to discourage leaders from generating multiple PoH streams. When this occurs, the network adopts ticks for that leader's period. Leaders can be slashed for generating multiple conflicting PoH streams during their period.
1. With my signature I am certifying that I computed `state hash` at `PoH count tick count` and `PoH hash`.
2. I will not vote on a branch that doesn't contain this message for at least `N` counts, or until `PoH tick count` + `N` is reached by the PoH stream (lockout period).
1. Periodically at a specific `PoH tick count` select the first vote signatures that create a supermajority from the previous voting round.
2. Append them together.
3. Hash the string for `N` counts via a similar process as PoH itself.
4. The resulting hash is the random seed for `M` counts, `M` leader periods, where M > N
## Leader Rotation
1. The leader is chosen via a random seed generated from stake weights and votes (the leader schedule)
2. The leader is rotated every `T` PoH ticks (leader period), accoding to the leader schedule
3. The schedule is applicable for `M` voting rounds
Leader's transmit for a count of `T` PoH ticks. When `T` is reached all the validators should switch to the next scheduled leader. To schedule leaders, the supermajority + `M` nodes are shuffled using the above calculated random seed.
All `T` ticks must be observed from the current leader for that part of PoH to be accepted by the network. If `T` ticks (and any intervening transactions) are not observed, the network optimistically fills in the `T` ticks, and continues with PoH from the next leader.
Forks can arise at PoH tick counts that correspond to leader rotations, because leader nodes may or may not have observed the previous leader's data. These empty ticks are generated by all nodes in the network at a network-specified rate for hashes/per/tick `Z`.
There are only two possible versions of the PoH during a voting period: PoH with `T` ticks and entries generated by the current leader, or PoH with just ticks. The "just ticks" version of the PoH can be thought of as a virtual ledger, one that all nodes in the network can derive from the last tick in the previous period.
Validators can ignore forks at other points (e.g. from the wrong leader), or slash the leader responsible for the fork.
Validators vote on the longest chain that contains their previous vote, or a longer chain if the lockout on their previous vote has expired.
#### Validator's View
##### Time Progression
The diagram below represents a validator's view of the PoH stream with possible forks over time. L1, L2, etc. are leader periods, and `E`s represent entries from that leader during that leader's period. The 'x's represent ticks only, and time flows downwards in the diagram.
```
time +----+ validator action
| | L1 | E(L1)
| |----| / \ vote(E(L2))
| | L2 | E(L2) x
| |----| / \ / \ vote(E(L2))
| | L3 | E(L3) x E(L3)' x
| |----| / \ / \ / \ / \ slash(L3)
| | L4 | x x E(L4) x x x x x
V |----| | | | | | | | | vote(E(L4))
V | L5 | xx xx xx E(L5) xx xx xx xx
V +----+ hang on to E(L4) and E(L5) for more...
```
Note that an `E` appearing on 2 branches at the same period is a slashable condition, so a validator observing `E(L3)` and `E(L3)'` can slash L3 and safely choose `x` for that period. Once a validator observes a supermajority vote on any branch, other branches can be discarded below that tick count. For any period, validators need only consider a single "has entries" chain or a "ticks only" chain.
It's useful to consider leader rotation over PoH tick count as time division of the job of encoding state for the network. The following table presents the above tree of forks as a time-divided ledger.
leader period | L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5
-------|----|----|----|----|----
data | E(L1)| E(L2) | E(L3) | E(L4) | E(L5)
ticks to prev | | | | x | xx
Note that only data from leader L3 will be accepted during leader period L3. Data from L3 may include "catchup" ticks back to a period other than L2 if L3 did not observe L2's data. L4 and L5's transmissions include the "ticks to prev" PoH entries.
This arrangement of the network data streams permits nodes to save exactly this to the ledger for replay, restart, and checkpoints.
#### Leader's View
When a new leader begins a period, it must first transmit any PoH (ticks) required to link the new period with the most recently observed and voted period.