Allow control addresses to be added with the miner's worker address

[jamerduhgamer]

Checklist

• This is not a new feature or an enhancement to the Filecoin protocol. If it is, please open an FIP issue.
• This is not a new feature request. If it is, please file a feature request instead.
• This is not brainstorming ideas. If you have an idea you'd like to discuss, please open a new discussion on the lotus forum and select the category as Ideas.
• I have a specific, actionable, and well motivated improvement to propose.

Lotus component

• lotus daemon - chain sync
• lotus miner - mining and block production
• lotus miner/worker - sealing
• lotus miner - proving(WindowPoSt)
• lotus miner/market - storage deal
• lotus miner/market - retrieval deal
• lotus miner/market - data transfer
• lotus client
• lotus JSON-RPC API
• lotus message management (mpool)
• Other

Improvement Suggestion

Currently you need access to a miner's owner key in order to add control addresses with the following command:
lotus-miner actor control set

SPs who no longer have access to the owner key (i.e SPs using a FIL lender for example) cannot add control addresses because of this. There is a pre-emptive solution to set the control addresses before changing the owner but none for SPs who did not.

Unless there is a security concern I am not aware of, I propose being able to use a miner's worker address instead. Something like a flag you can pass in such as:

lotus-miner actor control set --worker <address> --really-do-it <control address>

The priority here is that this is preventing some SPs from setting a windowPoSt control address which is quite important.

[rjan90]

Hey @jamerduhgamer!

Unfortunately the message to add control addresses needs to be signed by the owner-address. There should be a way for the SP to contstruct the message and get the lender to sign that message, but I have to explore that option a bit more and test it myself before I can write a step-by-step guide.

[arajasek]

@rjan90 #9572 is a nice-ish way to construct this message, example:

[jamerduhgamer]

Hi @rjan90, is there a specific reason to why it needs to be signed by the owner-address? Just curious because I can't think of any scenarios where this would be a problem.

Thank you for providing a potential solution though! @arajasek, appreciate issue #9572 being created! 🙏

Oh I see, the reason might just be requiring a FIP to allow the worker address the same feature.

[rjan90]

Closing this issue as the Filecoin protocol only allows the owner address to set control addresses. Changing this behaviour requires a FIP and a network upgrade.

Such a change should would not require a lot of work afaik but will require it to go through the FIP process, feel free to propose it as an pre-FIP discussion post here.. 🙏