SIMD-0191: Relax Transaction Constraints - Loading Failures

proposals/0191-enable-transaction-loading-failure-fees.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+---
+simd: '0191'
+title: Relax Transaction Loading Constraints
+authors:
+  - Andrew Fitzgerald (Anza)
+category: Standard
+type: Core
+status: Review
+created: 2024-11-06
+feature: PaymEPK2oqwT9TXAVfadjztH2H6KfLEB9Hhd5Q5frvP
+supersedes:
+superseded-by:
+extends:
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+This proposal aims to relax certain transaction errors related to loading
+transaction accounts, from protocol violations to runtime errors.
+Specifically, if a transaction fails to load a valid program account or
+exceeds the requested maximum loaded account data size, the transaction
+may be included in a block, and the transaction fee will be charged.
+
+## Motivation
+
+The current transaction constraints are overly restrictive and adds complexity
+in determining whether a block is valid or not.
+This proposal aims to relax these loading constraints to simplify the protocol,
+and give block-producers more flexibility in determining which transactions
+may be included in a block.
+The goal is to remove this reliance on account-state in order to validate a
+block.
+
+## New Terminology
+
+These terms are used elsewhere, but are defined here for clarity:
+
+- Protocol Violating Transaction Error: A transaction error that violates the
+  protocol. This class of errors must result in the entire block being rejected
+  by the network.
+- Runtime Transaction Error: A transaction error that results in a failed
+  transaction, and may be included in the block. These transactions still
+  incur transaction fees, and nonce advancements.
+
+## Detailed Design
+
+Among others, a transaction that fails to load due to violating one of the
+following constraints is considered a protocol violation error:
+
+1. The total loaded data size of the transaction must not exceed
+   `requested_loaded_accounts_data_size_limit`, or the default limit (64MiB).
+2. Any account used as a program in a top-level instruction must:
+    - be the native loader: `NativeLoader1111111111111111111111111111111`
+    - OR
+      - exist
+      - be executable
+      - be owned by the native loader: `NativeLoader1111111111111111111111111111111`
+    - OR
+      - exist
+      - be executable
+      - the owner account be owned by the native loader: `NativeLoader1111111111111111111111111111111`
+      - the owner account must be executable
+
+This proposal moves these errors from protocol violations to runtime errors.
+A transaction that fails to load due to violating either one of these
+constraints may be included in a block, so long as it is otherwise valid.
+The transaction must pay transaction fees, and if present, the nonce must be
+advanced.
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+- Do nothing
+  - This is the simplest option, as we could leave the protocol as is.
+  However, this leaves the protocol more complex than it needs to be.
+- Relax additional constraints:
+  - SIMD-0082 sought to relax additional constraints, but has not been
+    accepted. This proposal is a subset of SIMD-0082, intended to make the
+    review process simpler and faster. Therefore, we have decided to keep
+    this proposal focused specifically on certain loading failures.
+
+## Impact
+
+- Transactions that would previously have been dropped with a protocol
+  violation error can now be included and will be charged fees.
+  - Users must be more careful when constructing transactions to ensure they
+    are executable if they do not want to waste fees.
+- Block-production is simplified as it can be done without needing to load
+  large program accounts for the initial decision to include a transaction.
+
+## Security Considerations
+
+None
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+- Users must be more careful about what they sign, as they will be charged fees
+  for transactions that are included in a block, even if they are not executed.
+- This will likely break a lot of tooling, such as explorers, which may expect
+  all transactions to attempt execution.
+
+## Backwards Compatibility
+
+This proposal is backwards compatible with the current protocol, since it only
+relaxes constraints, and does not add any new constraints. All previously valid
+blocks would still be valid. However, new blocks may not be valid under the old
+protocol.