Eth Proof 2.0.0

This is a generalized merkle-patricia-proof module that now supports ethereum state proofs. That means you can prove all Ethereum data (including that a path is null). If you have a single hash that you trust (i.e. blockHash), you can use this module to succinctly prove exactly what data was or was not contained in the Ethereum blockchain at that snapshot in history.

Use

Installation

npm install eth-proof

Allows you to make proofs in a few different ways:

1. The Getandverify class requests and then verifies the response data against a blockHash you trust before returning the vetted data to you. This is the main use-case for development of more trustworthy applications that need to request data from a remote node. These functions work by chaining together granular verification functions of all the connected pieces.
2. For more customized usage you can directly request the proof (GetProof) and then
3. Use the Verify class to verify individual connected pieces within it. i.e. That the a header contains a specific stateRoot, or the accountProof contains a specific account at a specific address. This class has all the individual methods that GetAndVerify is using under the hood.

While the GetAndVerify functions are useful for dapps / wallets / block explorers to validate data before showing it to users, the Verify functions may be needed for more complex applications like side-chains / state-channels / plasma.

Instantiation

The getter classes (GetProof and GetAndVerify) request data from an RPC provider. So you'll have to instantiate an instance object with the RPC endpoint.

const { GetAndVerify, GetProof, VerifyProof } = require('eth-proof')
let getAndVerify = new GetAndVerify("https://mainnet.infura.io")

Gotchas

For Transaction, Receipt, and Log proofs: Must hit an Ethereum node that is running --syncmode full.

For Account and Storage proofs: Must hit a node that supports eth_getProof. This is any geth or parity node upgraded after ~ January 2019. Unfotunately, at time of this writing, neither Infura, nor any known centralized services support eth_getProof (Infura plans to in the near future). updates on this. So run your own node.

For historic Account and Storage proofs (ones who's blockhash is older than "latest"), you'll have to run your node with --gcmode archive, otherwise the state tree throws away old data and you will get "missing node" errors.

geth --syncmode full  --gcmode archive

Specifically: A node without the full flag will be missing historic transactions and receipts. It will return a missing transaction error if you ask for them. A node without the archive flag, will still be able to prove current account and storage values, but it will be missing the nodes needed to prove the account and storage values at historical points in time (at particular blocks).

The instance-functions make asynchronous requests using promises.

let blockHashThatITrust = '0xc32470c2459fd607246412e23b4b4d19781c1fa24a603d47a5bc066be3b5c0af'
let untrustedTxHash     = '0xacb81623523bbabccb1638a907686bc2f3229c70e3ab51777bef0a635f3ac03f'

getAndVerify.txAgainstBlockHash(untrustedTxHash, blockHashThatITrust).then((tx)=>{
  console.log(tx)
})

API

GetAndVerify

The GetAndVerify instance-functions take hexstrings and return array-like objects of buffers or, in the case of storage, simple buffers

• async txAgainstBlockHash(txHash, blockHash){}
• async receiptAgainstBlockHash(txHash, blockHash){}
• async accountAgainstBlockHash(accountAddress, blockHash){}
• async storageAgainstBlockHash(accountAddress, position, blockHash){}

They return the bare-bones objects indicated, after verifying everything about it (against a blockHash you already trust). The above is likely all you need for most applications. Please see the tests for sample uses. Please run only the file you are testing with npm run test test/account.js for example. The tests hit Infura extremely hard. Just one receipt proof for instance makes a separate request for every single receipt in the block from which the receipt resides.

GetProof

The GetProof instance-functions take hexstrings and return generic objects with the proof information (Note: The different return objects have different attributes).

• async transactionProof(txHash){}
• async receiptProof(txHash){}
• async accountProof(address, blockHash = null){}
• async storageProof(address, storageAddress, blockHash = null){}

Lastly just a helper for the direct RPC call as described here. Note that this proof is returned in a different format (which I find less directly useful).

• async eth_getProof(address, storageAddresses, blockNumber){}

Verify

The Verifier class (Verify) should always be run locally/client-side so it doesn't require an RPC connection. To impliment more advanced uses of the module use these class-level (static) functions. Some are synchronous while others are async (only because they use the async tree API under the hood. They do not make any remote calls).

Details

You can granularly verify the relationship between any 2 pieces of data that are connected in the architecture diagram below. However, all merkle proofs should inevitably be proven against a blockhash to prove there was a cost of counterfeiting it. A centralized service can easily create a fake "proof" that will fool you, if you don't have an anchor (something you already trust) to compare it against.

Establishing trust of a blockHash is a whole other issue. It relies on trust of a chain, which should ultimately rely on a set of heuristics involving expected total work at the current moment in time. This tool doesn't deal with that. It will however enable you to prove data against a workChain in later version.

The functions will look something like: getAndVerify.txAgainstWorkChain(txHash, workChain){}.

So Proving work on the "workChain" has very different properties and will be a separate project of its own. But this module we be able verify against the workChain (who's trust was establised elsewhere)

This module does not include an on-chain verification of the Merkle Patricia Tree. However those have been made and can be found here and here. I can not the current state or security of these other tools.

Formating

The data formats used/returned are eth-objects documented here.

They are account, header, log, proof, receipt, and transaction. Eth-objects mimic the native Ethereum format used in RLP. They are arrays of byteArrays and nested arrays (of the same). An account will look something like this:

[
  ,
  ,
  ,
  ,
]

But they can be dug into as arrays or using named helper methods for each expected property:

console.log(account[0]) // => 
console.log(account.nonce) // => 

They also have helpers to build/convert/view them in many other useful formats:

console.log(account.toJson())
// {
//   "nonce":"0x01",
//   "balance":"0x",
//   "storageRoot":"0xc14953a64f69632619636fbdf327e883436b9fd1b1025220e50fb70ab7d2e2a8",
//   "codeHash":"0xf7cf6232b8d655b92268b3565325e8897f2f82d65a4eaaf4e78fcef04e8fee6a"
// }
console.log(account.serialize()) // will give you the rlp encoding
// 
console.log(account.toHex()) // rlp encoding as a hex string
// "0xf8440180a0c14953a64f69632619636fbdf327e883436b9fd1b1025220e50fb70ab7d2e2a8a0f7cf6232b8d655b92268b3565325e8897f2f82d65a4eaaf4e78fcef04e8fee6a"

Can be created from a direct RPC result or any of the above:

Account.fromRpc(rpcResponseString)
Account.fromHex(rlpString)
Account.fromBuffer(rlpBuffer)
Account.fromRaw(arrayOfBuffers)

Testing

The tx and receipt tests use infura right now (because I dont have a completely full node).

Its all data currently on Ethereum Mainnet.

These tests hit Infura really hard because every tx or receipt proof requires multiple RPC calls (1 for each tx in the particular block). please be considerate. If you have a full archive node, re-point the rpc calls locally or use it.only to perform only one tests at a time.

Thanks to @simon-jentzsch, for EIP-1186 to make this data available from Geth and Parity clients.

How it Works

Binary merkle proofs are explained pretty well in this video by Joseph chow. Ethereum's Merkle Patricia Tree is different, but the concept is the same.

Proving absence: This is a really cool feature of Merkle Patricia Trees. You can prove a key is undefined (whether it is non-existent in the tree or is explicitly set to null). Null-proofs are currently working in version 2! I don't know of any tools besides this one that support them.

An important design decision I made (and implemented in the merkle-patricia-tree module underlaying this one), was to represent the proof as itself a Patricia Tree (a sparse one), in order to verify it.

The steps:

• 1 create a new tree from scratch
• 2 putthe nodes from proof into the flat key value DB (at keccak(value) -> value)
• 3 Set the tree root to the known value
• 4 perform a standard get on this tree

This affords a few interesting optimizations: First, it enabled me to recycle the tree-traversal code already being used, eliminating the hardest part, and avoiding have 2 versions of the same logic. Second it enabled null-proofs to be done with a simple amendment to the tree instead of inventing logic that I don't believe had been authored anywhere yet. Third, it allowed proofs to be combined and therefore compressed/optimized. The nodes could now be communicated in an order, eliminating the need to communicate the same nodes twice between different proofs.

Lastly, This approach seems to extend much farther than I had originally thought: This sparse tree will actually support put, which means that it can be used as a drop-in replacement database for the EVM. An O(log(n)) replacement for the entire state database that is

End Game

To complete the functionality attempted by this tool, a "light-client" tool (that downloads all the hashes and validates the work between them) will have to be built. The output of which might be a "workChain" which can interface with eth-proof to finally begin to leverage some of the really useful security properties of PoW blockchains.

We would like to find the right context to run an EVM implementation directly on a proof tree.

long term goal is are light clients that can validate an entire state transition. It would just need a proof containing all data touched during the state transition (tx). Unfortunately Ethereum removed the receipt.postTransactioState root which could have been useful for this 😦

We also would like for wallets that only display data that has been verified.

We are finding it useful to relay ethereum to itself. You can make proofs about any historical information and information not usually available to the EVM can be made available. Layer 2 solutions like Truebit and Plasma could greatly benefit from this functionality.