Venus: Miner address is recipient of block reward, should be owner.

[ZenGround0]

Description

cc @phritz @shannonwells please verify that this is right and I'm not going crazy.

The intent behind having a separate ownerAddr and minerAddr was to keep two different accounts for block rewards (ownerAddr) and collateral (minerAddr). Currently minerAddr is getting both collateral and block reward (see block reward payout coming from block.Miner, which is set during mining with worker.minerAddr, which is set to the miner, not the miner owner.

Acceptance criteria

Owner gets paid not miner actor.

Risks + pitfalls

This could mess up some tests if they've been set up with faulty assumptions and now rely on the miner address getting the funds.

Where to begin

Very simple change in node to pass in the miner owner when constructing the default worker.

[mslipper]

Saw this pop up in my feed; if this gets implemented I'll need to make changes on the stats end as well.

[phritz]

i would expect the miner to get the reward but why would know for sure. i think in the future the rewards will be held in escrow for a while and the miner will be able to redeem them. this is wai from my understanding.

[travisperson]

@whyrusleeping do you know if there are any implications to this issue around how rewards will be released from escrow?

[phritz]

seems like i may be wrong about this. @whyrusleeping ?

cc @acruikshank

[acruikshank]

I agree with @ZenGround0. This should be minerOwnerAddr all the way through.

[shannonwells]

yes zen you're right. The miner actor address is not in the wallet anyway,
so sending it FIL should fail. It is really just an identifier for the
actor. This probably resulted from confusion due to massively overloading
the term miner without any other distinctions, all over the code base. we
need to be far more precise in our wording or these kinds of mistakes will
continue.

Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 6:29 PM ZenGround0 [e-mail] wrote:

Description

cc @phritz https://github.com/phritz @shannonwells
https://github.com/shannonwells please verify that this is right and
I'm not going crazy.

The intent behind having a separate ownerAddr and minerAddr was to keep
two different accounts for block rewards (ownerAddr) and collateral (
minerAddr). Currently minerAddr is getting both collateral and block
reward (see block reward payout
https://github.com/filecoin-project/go-filecoin/blob/master/consensus/processor.go#L446 coming
from block.Miner
https://github.com/filecoin-project/go-filecoin/blob/master/consensus/processor.go#L105,
which is set during mining with worker.minerAddr
https://github.com/filecoin-project/go-filecoin/blob/master/mining/block_generate.go#L73,
which is set to the miner, not the miner owner
https://github.com/filecoin-project/go-filecoin/blob/master/node/node.go#L776
.
Acceptance criteria

Owner gets paid not miner actor.
Risks + pitfalls

This could mess up some tests if they've been set up with faulty
assumptions and now rely on the miner address getting the funds.
Where to begin

Very simple change in node to pass in the miner owner when constructing
the default worker.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/filecoin-project/go-filecoin/issues/1844, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAercFd7h8ErXvjWRA0Rdfj5jk9k3uBYks5vLODqgaJpZM4ar-gP
.