mirror of
https://github.com/lux-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-11-02 11:39:52 +00:00
Every rendered "T-Chain" / "ThresholdVM" / "teleportvm" reference across the paper corpus is rewritten to the correct canonical chain by concern: threshold signing / MPC / bridge custody / key recovery -> M-Chain (MVM); FHE / encrypted compute / threshold decryption -> F-Chain (FVM); teleport / cross-chain messaging -> B-Chain (bridgevm); consensus Pulsar stays Q-Chain. Section lux-trust-kernel/03-t-chain-threshold-governance.tex renamed -> 03-f-chain-encrypted-policy.tex (with \input + xref fixes). Braided "T-Chain" sections split by concern (M vs F). Only lp-020's chain-separation rationale and the shared lux/chains/thresholdvm library path retain the name, to record the removal. All changed papers rebuilt (pdflatex, rc=0, no undefined refs). ยง09 of lux-dao-governance-framework reframed: fabricated "production deployment" metrics ($50M/$240k/$12M, survey %s, "as of Oct 2024") relabeled as illustrative design configurations with no invented replacements; reality noted (DAO treasury is a 1/1 Safe); conclusion echo + one "first production" overclaim softened. This commit also captures concurrent corpus workstreams on the same tree. Co-authored-by: Hanzo Dev <[email protected]>
82 lines
3.6 KiB
TeX
82 lines
3.6 KiB
TeX
\section{Elastic Appchain Scaling}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:elastic}
|
|
%%==========================================================================
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Motivation}
|
|
|
|
Fixed validator set sizes are suboptimal: small appchains with low utilization pay for
|
|
over-provisioned security, while rapidly growing appchains may have validator sets too
|
|
small to handle peak load or maintain Byzantine fault tolerance at required thresholds.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Demand-Responsive Validator Scaling}
|
|
|
|
Define the \emph{load metric} $\Lambda_s(t)$ as the smoothed transaction volume of
|
|
appchain $s$:
|
|
\[
|
|
\Lambda_s(t) = (1-\alpha) \cdot \Lambda_s(t-1) + \alpha \cdot \text{TxCount}(s, t),
|
|
\]
|
|
where $\alpha = 0.1$ (exponential moving average). The target validator count is:
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
n_s^*(t) = n_s^{\min} + \left\lfloor \frac{\Lambda_s(t)}{\Lambda_{\text{threshold}}} \right\rfloor \cdot \Delta n,
|
|
\label{eq:elastic}
|
|
\end{equation}
|
|
|
|
where $n_s^{\min}$ is the minimum validator count for BFT (typically 5), $\Lambda_{\text{threshold}}$
|
|
is the load per validator threshold, and $\Delta n$ is the scaling step size.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Admission and Ejection}
|
|
|
|
When $n_s^*(t) > n_s(t)$ (demand exceeds supply), the appchain emits an \emph{expansion
|
|
signal} on the AVS marketplace (see the Lux Restaking Protocol companion paper).
|
|
Eligible Primary Network validators who meet the appchain's criteria are admitted in order
|
|
of reputation score until $n_s(t) = n_s^*(t)$.
|
|
|
|
When $n_s^*(t) < n_s(t)$ (oversupply), the appchain initiates a \emph{graceful ejection}
|
|
process: validators with the lowest reputation scores are given 24 hours' notice and
|
|
then removed from the active set. Their unbonding periods begin at removal.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Security Under Elastic Scaling}
|
|
|
|
\begin{theorem}[BFT Preservation Under Elastic Scaling]
|
|
If the minimum validator count $n_s^{\min} \geq 3f+1$ where $f$ is the maximum tolerated
|
|
faulty validators, and new validators are admitted only after passing the reputation
|
|
threshold $\rho_{\min}$, then BFT safety is maintained throughout scaling transitions.
|
|
\end{theorem}
|
|
|
|
\begin{proof}
|
|
At any point in time, the active validator set has cardinality $n_s(t) \geq n_s^{\min}$.
|
|
Since $n_s^{\min} \geq 3f+1$, the Beacon consensus protocol tolerates up to $f$
|
|
Byzantine validators. New entrants undergo a probationary period where they observe
|
|
consensus without voting (preventing Sybil injection during scaling events). After the
|
|
probationary period, they join the voting set only if $n_s(t) + 1$ still satisfies the
|
|
BFT constraint.
|
|
\end{proof}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Scaling Performance}
|
|
|
|
We simulate elastic scaling for a gaming appchain experiencing a viral event (10$\times$
|
|
traffic spike) and a DeFi appchain during a market crash (0.5$\times$ traffic):
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Elastic Scaling Response Times}
|
|
\label{tab:elastic_perf}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Scenario} & \textbf{Traffic Change} & \textbf{$\Delta n$} & \textbf{Response Time} & \textbf{Downtime} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
Gaming spike & $+900\%$ & $+15$ validators & 4.2 minutes & 0 \\
|
|
Gaming normalization & $-800\%$ & $-14$ validators & 27.3 hours (graceful) & 0 \\
|
|
DeFi crash & $-50\%$ & $-3$ validators & 27.3 hours (graceful) & 0 \\
|
|
DeFi recovery & $+120\%$ & $+4$ validators & 6.1 minutes & 0 \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
Scale-up events are fast (minutes, limited by P-Chain transaction finality and validator
|
|
onboarding). Scale-down events are slow by design (24-hour graceful ejection), ensuring
|
|
validators receive fair notice and preventing rapid shrinkage that would reduce security.
|
|
|
|
%%==========================================================================
|