DeprecateBLS

Security Considerations

Assumptions, limitations, and safeguards of the recovery mechanism

Important Security Notice

This recovery mechanism involves careful trade-offs between security, accessibility, and practicality. Understanding these considerations is essential before participating.

Validator Control ≠ Ownership

Core Assumption

The mechanism assumes that possession of validator signing keys implies legitimate stake ownership. While this is true for most cases, there are important edge cases to consider.

Limitations:

  • • Compromised keys: If validator keys were stolen, an attacker could generate proofs. However, they would have already compromised the validator regardless.
  • • Staking services: Validators operated by staking providers where the service retains keys. The two largest staking providers (with 0x00 validators), Stakefish and Staked.us, have confirmed that they will support our community-driven approach.

The mechanism acknowledges these limitations but prioritizes practical recovery over perfect theoretical purity. The transparent verification process enables community scrutiny of edge cases.

Fraud and False Claims Prevention

Multiple verification layers prevent fraudulent claims and ensure only legitimate validators can participate in the recovery mechanism.

Cryptographic Verification

Every proof must include valid BLS signature from the validator key. Signatures cannot be forged without key possession.

Registry Cross-Checking

Automated scripts verify validator existence on beacon chain and confirm 0x00 credential status.

Duplicate Detection

System prevents multiple claims for the same validator index or conflicting withdrawal addresses.

Community Review

Public GitHub repository enables independent audit and flagging of suspicious submissions.

Off-Chain Proof Collection Safety

Collecting proofs off-chain (via GitHub) before any protocol changes provides important security benefits:

  • 1. No protocol risk: The collection process cannot affect consensus or validator security since no on-chain changes occur.
  • 2. Extended review period:Community has time to identify issues, propose improvements, and reach consensus before implementation.
  • 3. Transparent record:Complete audit trail of all submissions and community discussion preserved in Git history.
  • 4. Reversible mistakes:Errors in verification or process can be corrected without chain state complications.

Only after sufficient community review and consensus would any EIP proposal consider integrating verified proofs into the PQ transition logic.

Governance and Transparency

The success of this mechanism depends on community trust and active participation in governance decisions.

Principles:

  • All verification code is open source and auditable
  • Proof submissions are publicly visible in real-time
  • Community discussion occurs in transparent forums or Discord
  • Proofs can be verified using validator public keys available in Beacon chain
  • Integration with consensus layer requires standard EIP process

This is fundamentally a community-driven initiative, not a protocol-level feature. Success requires broad participation from client teams, researchers, validators, and governance participants.

Security Philosophy

This mechanism prioritizes practical recovery of legitimate stakesover theoretical perfection. By combining cryptographic verification, transparent community review, and careful off-chain testing, we create a pathway that respects security principles while acknowledging the reality of lost mnemonics.

The phased approach—proving ownership now, implementing recovery later—ensures ample time for security review and community consensus before any protocol changes.