Request for information about disputes #GDR-13

The arbitrators are contacting indexer address 0xb06071394531b63b0bac78f27e12dc2beaa913e4 (protofire) about disputes filed in the protocol.

To make the investigation as brief as possible, please provide the following information and any other relevant records about the open disputes:

  • Version of graph-node used.
  • Graph-node configuration in full.
  • Type and version of Ethereum node.
  • Table of PoIs generated by the affected subgraphs.
  • A dump of the call cache data from the database for the affected subgraphs.
  • Entity values as of the divergent block once identified.

This is not an all-inclusive list. Request for additional information may be made if considered necessary.

How to Get Relevant Data

You can use the following queries to extract information from the indexer software to be used in the evaluation.

# Get subgraphs schema
SELECT name FROM public.deployment_schemas where subgraph = 'QmZDfRpakj4BTNaRUDiCAknzE5rbXQcQm2hRYzX8kNSpx6';

# Move to the subgraphs schema

# Dump PoI TABLE - (from outside of psql console but on server)
pg_dump --dbname="<YOUR_DB_NAME" --host=<DB_HOST> --port=5432 --username=<USERNAME>  --table='<SUBGRAPH_SCHEMA>."poi2$"' --file='<FILE_TO_SAVE_TO>'

# Dump call cache (on some setups this table may be in a different schema, check it with `select * from public.chains`)
pg_dump --dbname="<YOUR_DB_NAME" --host=<DB_HOST> --port=5432 --username=<USERNAME>  --table='public.eth_call_cache"' --file='<FILE_TO_SAVE_TO>'

Once a divergent block is identified:

# loop through all entity tables and get changes for that block
# for each entity table in subgraph deployment schema:
select * from <entity_table> where lower(<DIVERGENT_BLOCK>);

Purpose of the Requirement

This requirement is related to the following disputes:

Dispute (0xa90f3240bd40c63359464063b4d8e76b67d1585f0f1e5303b588109feb0c559c)
├─ Type: Indexing
├─ Status: Undecided (2.98 days ago)
├─ Indexer: protofire (0xb06071394531b63b0bac78f27e12dc2beaa913e4)
├─ Fisherman: 0xc56961836857210e256d71c91a62e90865075380
├─ SubgraphDeployment
│  └─ id: 0xa1a64dc25cf8e6bb6adc4072b3027cd12efca9d323421f91859e1bc796cf2def (QmZDfRpakj4BTNaRUDiCAknzE5rbXQcQm2hRYzX8kNSpx6)
├─ Economics
│  ├─ indexerSlashableStake: 572123.37197758264785916 GRT
│  └─ indexingRewardsCollected: 420.819777305358077637 GRT
├─ Allocation
│  ├─ id: 0x23989375ebdb245bbde333dace036ece75f16c0a
│  ├─ createdAtEpoch: 547
│  ├─ createdAtBlock: 0x4c8d25dc9a8d5c2f8988a5224ab64762e2426f8f66d1576cfebee884edc78f5c
│  ├─ closedAtEpoch
│  │  ├─ id: 548
│  │  └─ startBlock: 0xc1ee3e5f6a32d27c59ab250f70d1d0fbf08dd49bf69e2af2f7969bdee019a77c (#15088776)
│  └─ closedAtBlock: 0x6894bdd62ae52610fdf3881fe902f4af9b625cd5fad732421aa5f5abb591070c (#15090955)
└─ POI
   ├─ submitted: 0x4c2c1b705092d41efaeddea5d2aac6d2a844bf3d90976a8b4fb9e14976075f51
   ├─ match: Not-Found
   ├─ previousEpochPOI: Not-Found
   └─ lastEpochPOI: Not-Found

About the Procedure

The Arbitration Charter regulates the arbitration process. You can find it in Radicle project ID rad:git:hnrkrhnth6afcc6mnmtokbp4h9575fgrhzbay

For communications, please use this forum. Additionally, please monitor Graph Protocol’s Discord #arbitration ( ) for any arbitrator reaching out for more information.

Indexer agent version: v0.19.3
graph-node version: 0.26
Erigon version: Erigon1 [2022.04.02-beta]

Hi I’m Brian from Protofire. This is our first request about disputes we receive since after running our indexer cluster for over a year and half

After checking out why we received this request, we realized that we got an indexing error when we were indexing this subgraph.

We usually run some scrips for many operations tasks like open and close allocations and one of them run indexing stop rules when we detect any error in any subgraph using. It seems that the indexer agent recommended us to use a valid POI to close this allocation

And I don’t know why our script closed it automatically after detecting indexing error without verifying correctly that the subgraph was not indexing correctly.

I want it to be clear that there was no malicious intent on our side. We are still debugging this.

If you need more information please let us know

Thank you!