-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 369
CIP-0168? | More BuiltinValue Functions
#1090
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ | ||||||||||
| --- | ||||||||||
| CIP: 168 | ||||||||||
| Title: More `BuiltinValue` Functions | ||||||||||
| Category: Plutus | ||||||||||
| Status: Proposed | ||||||||||
| Authors: | ||||||||||
| - fallen-icarus <[email protected]> | ||||||||||
| Implementors: [] | ||||||||||
| Discussions: | ||||||||||
| - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/1090 | ||||||||||
| Created: 2025-10-01 | ||||||||||
| License: CC-BY-4.0 | ||||||||||
| --- | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Abstract | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| [CIP-0153][1] added a new `BuiltinValue` type to make working with on-chain values more efficient. | ||||||||||
| However, it added only a few builtin functions for working with this new `BuiltinValue` type which | ||||||||||
| limits its real world usability. Adding and maintaining builtin functions is costly, but the | ||||||||||
| importance of validating values in the eUTxO model justifies a wider range of builtin functions for | ||||||||||
| this purpose. With this in mind, this CIP proposes a few extra builtin functions to improve the | ||||||||||
| usability of this new `BuiltinValue` type while still trying to minimize the overall maintenance | ||||||||||
| burden. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Motivation: why is this CIP necessary? | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| > UPLC is not a general-purpose programming language. It is a language specifically designed to | ||||||||||
| > write validation logic to set constraints for the creation and transfer of Value and Data across | ||||||||||
| > the Cardano blockchain. **Given that half of the entire purpose of this language is to express | ||||||||||
| > constraints over the creation and transfer of** `Value`, why is Value treated as a standard | ||||||||||
| > library concept rather than a first-class language primitive? | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| This was the motivation for [CIP-0153][1]. Given the overwhelming importance for validating `Value`, | ||||||||||
| it makes sense for `BuiltinValue` to have a reasonably disproportionate number of builtin operations | ||||||||||
| as compared to `BuiltinList` or `BuiltinArray`. The current builtins added in CIP-0153 do not cover | ||||||||||
| many of the use cases for `Value`. As a reference, see the Aiken stdlib's [functions on `Value`][2]. | ||||||||||
| Functions like `tokens`, `negate`, and `policies` are not possible to implement using the CIP-0153 | ||||||||||
| builtin functions which means they will not benefit from the new `BuiltinValue` type. Plutus needs | ||||||||||
| enough builtins to cover the main operations on `BuiltinValue`, either through generalizable | ||||||||||
| builtins or dedicated ones. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Specification | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| This CIP proposes adding the following new builtins functions: | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ```haskell | ||||||||||
| type BuiltinCurrencySymbol = BuiltinByteString | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| -- | Negate all values in a `BuiltinValue`. | ||||||||||
| negate :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| -- | Intersection of two `BuiltinValue`s. Returns data in the first value for the (policy ids, token | ||||||||||
| -- names) existing in both values. | ||||||||||
| intersection :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| -- | Returns all policy ids found in the value. | ||||||||||
| policies :: BuiltinValue -> List [BuiltinCurrencySymbol] | ||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What about getting the token names? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That doesn't seem as useful to me since assets could have the same token name despite having different policy ids. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Did you mean
Suggested change
or
Suggested change
? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, but I'm not sure what is the right syntax for There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It should be |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| -- | Return all tokens and their quantities for a given policy id. It returns a `BuiltinValue` so | ||||||||||
| -- that the result can make use of the `lookupCoin` builtin added in CIP-0153. It can always be | ||||||||||
| -- converted to a `List` for pattern-matching using the `valueData` builtin added in CIP-0153. | ||||||||||
| -- See the Rationale section for why `intersection` isn't used instead. | ||||||||||
| lookupTokens :: BuiltinCurrencySymbol -> BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I find the naming a bit confusing since it returns the same type it is given. How about There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Perhaps it is better to make restrictPolicyTo :: [BuiltinCurrencySymbol] -> BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValueThis would support a higher-level |
||||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals? | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| After this CIP, the total set of `BuiltinValue` functions will be: | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ```haskell | ||||||||||
| -- CIP-0153 functions | ||||||||||
| insertCoin :: BuiltinCurrencySymbol -> BuiltinTokenName -> BuiltinInteger -> BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
| lookupCoin :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinCurrencySymbol -> BuiltinTokenName -> BuiltinInteger | ||||||||||
| valueContains :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue -> Bool | ||||||||||
| unionValue :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
| valueData :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinData | ||||||||||
| unValueData :: BuiltinData -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| -- New functions | ||||||||||
| negate :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
| intersection :: BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
| policies :: BuiltinValue -> List [BuiltinCurrencySymbol] | ||||||||||
| lookupTokens :: BuiltinCurrencySymbol -> BuiltinValue -> BuiltinValue | ||||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| From these builtin functions, most of Aiken's stdlib `Value` functions can now make use of the | ||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. To be a bit annoying: it would make this proposal much more concrete to have an appendix listing all the interesting functions you want to implement with their implementations using the new primitives. I think they're presumably all quite simple, and it would make the case quite compelling. Ideally we'd also be able to see how this improves the costing behaviour of these functions. |
||||||||||
| improved efficiency of CIP-0153's `BuiltinValue`. The single `intersection` function enables all | ||||||||||
| kinds of higher-level filtering functions using only a single builtin function. While `intersection` | ||||||||||
| is not a trivial function, it is very similar to `unionValue` which has already been costed for | ||||||||||
| CIP-0153. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| > [!NOTE] | ||||||||||
| > While `lookupTokens` could also be implemented using `intersection`, `lookupTokens` is just a | ||||||||||
| > simple outer map value lookup. It should be a very simple builtin to cost and maintain so | ||||||||||
| > accepting the performance hit from `intersection` instead likely isn't justified. For reference, | ||||||||||
| > Aiken's `tokens` function is used many times in a single contract execution (once per tx output) | ||||||||||
| > for protocols designed based on [CIP-89][9] which means the overhead from using `intersection` | ||||||||||
| > would quickly add up. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ### Does this create a "Slippery Slope"? | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| Aside from `intersection`, all other proposed builtins are simple operations commonly found on `Map` | ||||||||||
| data structures. So the author does not believe this CIP sets a precedence for "builtin bloat". | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Path to Active | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ### Acceptance Criteria | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| - [ ] The feature is implemented according to the implementation plan and merged into | ||||||||||
| the master branch of the [plutus][3] repository. | ||||||||||
| - [ ] [cardano-ledger][4] is updated to include new protocol parameters to control costing of | ||||||||||
| the new builtins. | ||||||||||
| - [ ] The feature is integrated into [cardano-node][5] and released as part of a hard fork. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ### Implementation Plan | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| The implementation of this CIP should not proceed without an empirical assessment of the | ||||||||||
| effectiveness of the new primitives, as per the following plan: | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| 1. Implement the new primitives according to the specification. | ||||||||||
| 2. Assign a preliminary cost to the new builtin functions. Consider similar operations and their | ||||||||||
| current costs. | ||||||||||
| 3. Create variants of the [existing benchmarks][6] and potentially add some more. | ||||||||||
| 4. Check that the builtin operations over `BuiltinValue` are indeed significantly faster. | ||||||||||
| 5. Check that `lookupTokens` is significantly faster and/or uses significantly less execution memory | ||||||||||
| than a comparable implementation using `intersection`. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| If the preliminary performance investigation was not successful, this CIP should be revised | ||||||||||
| according to the findings of the experiment. Otherwise, the implementation can proceed: | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| 6. Determine the most appropriate costing functions for modelling the builtin's performance | ||||||||||
| and assign costs accordingly. | ||||||||||
| 7. Add the new builtin type and functions to the appropriate sections in the [Plutus Core | ||||||||||
| Specification][7]. | ||||||||||
| 8. Formalize the new builtin type and functions in the [plutus-metatheory][8]. | ||||||||||
| 9. The final version of the feature is ready to be merged into [plutus][3] and accepted by | ||||||||||
| the Plutus Core team. | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ## Copyright | ||||||||||
| This CIP is licensed under [CC-BY-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| [1]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0153/README.md "CIP-0153" | ||||||||||
| [2]: https://aiken-lang.github.io/stdlib/cardano/assets.html "Aiken `Value` functions" | ||||||||||
| [3]: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/plutus/ "plutus" | ||||||||||
| [4]: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger "cardano-ledger" | ||||||||||
| [5]: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/cardano-node "cardano-node" | ||||||||||
| [6]: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/plutus/tree/master/plutus-benchmark/script-contexts "script-context-benchmarks" | ||||||||||
| [7]: https://plutus.cardano.intersectmbo.org/resources/plutus-core-spec.pdf "Formal Specification of the Plutus Core Language" | ||||||||||
| [8]: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/plutus/tree/master/plutus-metatheory "plutus-metatheory" | ||||||||||
| [9]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0089/README.md "Beacon Tokens CIP" | ||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding
negatetouniongives us a group onValue. The obvious missing thing to me is scalar multiplication (to give us a module). Does anyone need that?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't personally have a use for scalar multiplication (right now), but I could see it being useful to others.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is
negatejust scalar multiplication with the scalar being-1? In that case I think instead of addingnegatewe should just addscale?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@colll78 could this do what you need to do for #1090 (comment)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It could, but it would be significantly less efficient than
negateValue(roughly 64% more expensive) if we are to assume there is a similar costing difference tomultiplyInteger -1 nandsubtractInteger 0 nThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These two builtins only perform the respective arithmetic operations,
scaleValuewill have to traverse the givenValue, which is going to make the discrepancy less pronounced.There's a different point however:
multiplyIntegerwas surprisingly tricky to cost, so that's gonna propagate intoscaleValue(so much so that it may not even be feasible to implement that with the current costing machinery, not sure), whilenegateValuewould be very straightforward. @kwxm what do you think?If Kenneth agrees costing
scaleValueis hard, then I personally don't mind addingnegateValueright away, given your reasoning here, because even with fastercaseListandcasePair, the derivativenegateValueis probably going to be at least an order of magnitude more expensive than a builtin one (not least becausenegateValueis guaranteed to produce a well-formedValueso we don't need to check any of the invariants (except for quantities being in their range), while a derivative implementation will have to, because we don't provide an unsafe builtin that could create aValuewhile avoiding the checks).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
multiplyInteger -1 nis 64% more expensive thansubtractInteger 0 n? If that's the case I'd be surprised, and it would suggest that eithermultiplyIntegerorsubtractIntegeris probably not costed properly.Regarding costing of
multiplyIntegerin general - since we cap the range of quantities, we should be able to consider it constant time.Whether it's
negateValueorscaleValue, it will be linear whether it's a builtin or not. Certainly the constant factors will differ greatly, but a builtin would be much more useful if it is asymptotically more expensive without it. If we are going to add one more builtin for the intra-era HF, are we absolutely sure that it should benegateValue/scaleValue?