Some random notes by chriseth
This part explains how the decentralized source repository that verifies the required files and makes them available looks like under the hood and how you can use it.
As explained in the previous part, source files, abi, metadata and other information is all hashed into the code of a contract. This means we do not need to worry about the correctness of the information, because we can
So all we need is contract developers to make their source code and metadata available. As a bonus, we will create a directory where metadata and other information about each contract can be retrieved just by the contract’s address. So you do not have to retrieve the bytecode from chain, nor the other files via swarm or ipfs. Furthermore, the service will make sure that the data is also kept online and retrievable via ipfs and swarm.
The source code and metadata repository consists of four components:
The monitor listens for new blocks on all chains. Whenever a new block is mined, it looks for contract creation transactions, retrieves their bytecode, extracts the metadata hash and queues the metadata hash for retrieval from swarm or ipfs. Once the metadata is retrieved, it queues all referenced sources for retrieval from swarm or ipfs. If they are finally also retrieved, the metadata json and the sources are forwarded to the verifier to check that they compile to the bytecode of the new contract.
The monitor basically allows the metadata and source data to get into the repository if it has been available on swarm or ipfs around the time of contract deployment. This means that as a contract deployer, you do not have to care that your metadata and source is available on swarm or ipfs indefinitely, but just at the time of deployment.
One shortcoming of the monitor at the current time is that it only works for contract creation transactions and not for contracts created by other contracts. You have to use the injector for that.
If you forgot to make your metadata and sources available at deployment time or if you are dealing with a contract that has been deployed a while ago, you can use the manual injector. It essentially works the same way as the monitor, just that it is a website where you upload your files.
A proof-of-concept of the injector can be found at https://verification.komputing.org.
Because you are uploading the metadata file, you do not have to select the compiler version, specify the name of the contract you want verified or flatten the source. The system will take care of selecting the right setting and compiler version.
The final version will not only look nicer, it will also be even more convenient: You just need to upload all the metadata and source files of all the contracts you want to verify in one go. No need to select the chain or address, no need to determine which source files belong to which contract and so on. It is only about making the files available, the system can sort out how they can be used.
If we allow anyone to upload arbitrary files, the system is easily prone to denial-of-service attacks. Instead, we only store files that compile to contracts that are deployed on chain. This way, there is a certain cost involved. You can still upload more or less arbitrary data in comments of source files, but there will probably be a restriction on the size of source files, so we are relatively safe.
The job of the verifier will be to take a metadata file and the corresponding source files, extract the compiler version and options from the metadata file and re-compile the contract. As a first step, the verifier can check that the metadata hash in the compiled bytecode matches the hash of the metadata file. This way, we already know that metadata file has been generated by the compiler at some point. The next check will be to see that the bytecode matches the one at a certain address on chain (or just any address).
The pinning service is responsible for taking the data that was verified and publishing it via various means, e.g. ipfs, swarm and just direct http.
One problem is that the directory always changes, so metadata files can be retrieved via their hash and thus also source files, but the list of all contracts cannot be retrieved directly. We experimented with using ipns for that, but it is not really usable as of now.
The best way here would be to publish the ipfs and swarm hashes of the directory via some other means.
Furthermore, direct access via http is of course also supported.
Finally, interested people can clone the repository and help making it available via ipfs and swarm to reduce the bandwidth strain on the central server.
What can be done with the source and metadata repository?
Of course, you can use it to just browse the source code of contracts. Just go to https://verification.komputing.org/repository/contract/mainnet/ and select the address. The list of sources is also something other services like auditing platforms, static analysis tools and so on can build on top.
If you want to interface with some contract, you can download its ABI (as part of the metadata.json) to see how to format the parameters, for example for one of the DAI contracts: https://contractrepo.komputing.org/contract/mainnet/0x4D95A049d5B0b7d32058cd3F2163015747522e99/metadata.json
And last but not least - the main use case - wallets can use it to show more information about the contract a transaction goes to. The flow is as follows:
If a transaction to a contract is to be confirmed, the wallet
downloads the metadata file for the contract (via the link above, for example).
Then it looks for the function whose four-byte selector matches the first
four byte of the transaction payload. Next, the transaction data
is decoded according to the ABI of that function. Then, the
userdoc field is searched for the function to retrieve the
natspec documentation of the function. The natspec
is formatted according to the decoded parameters:
For example, if you call the function
which has a userdoc of
Make `_owner` the new owner.
then the wallet decodes the actual address sent to the function
_owner to show
Make 0x1234...890a the new owner.
It could even use ENS to reverse-resolve the address.
Finally, the wallet could also show a link to the source code of the contract.
As a takeaway, note that there is so much more data out there that we could use to improve the user experience. Smart Contract source code, documentation and front-ends should be better interleaved to reduce the required trust in the front-end authors and in the way the front-end is retrieved over the web.
All that is required from developers is to hold on to the metadata and source files as they were when the contracts were compiled for deployment and make them available via the metadata and source code repository.
It would be nice if deployment tools could do this automatically, maybe even by default, since Smart Contract source codes are meant to be public.
Finally, if wallets integrate this feature, they could even show a warning if the source is not available via the source code repository to create an incentive to upload the source.