SIMD-0387: BLS Pubkey Management in Vote Account. (#387)

* SIMD-387: BLS Pubkey Management in Vote Account.

* Add in missing sections.

* Make linter happy.

* Explain alternatives.

* Mention BLS rogue-key attack in security considerations.

* Reword the BLS rogue key attack a bit.

* Proof of knowledge -> Proof of possession

* Address pr comments.

* Specify that it's a compressed BLS pubkey.

* Clarify the new vote program additions and add BLS syscall/program to Alternatives Considered.

* Specifying the new variant will fail in all other instructions.

* Make linter happy.

* Some small fixes.

* Update enum new variant definition.

* Address pr comments.

* Add proposal to remove vote program from using builtin CU limit.

* Update proposals/0387-bls-pubkey-management-in-vote-account.md

Co-authored-by: Joe C <jcaulfield135@gmail.com>

* Update proposals/0387-bls-pubkey-management-in-vote-account.md

Co-authored-by: Joe C <jcaulfield135@gmail.com>

* Update proposals/0387-bls-pubkey-management-in-vote-account.md

Co-authored-by: Joe C <jcaulfield135@gmail.com>

* Make linter happy.

* Shorten some paragraphs.

* Address comments.

* Small change.

* Address Sam's comments, fix typo and add PoP definition.

* Fix typo again

* Make linter happy.

* Clarify proof of possession calculation.

* Add newlines between items.

* Describe the replay attack in PoP generation.

* Explain the other fields as well.

* Clarify the fields in security considerations.

* Clarify label is upper case.

* Address pr comments.

* Make linter happy.

* Explain PoP calculation and verification.

* Clarify a bit.

* Clarify more.

* Address pr comments.

* Clarify the cli will do everything for the user.

* Fix english.

* Clarify a bit.

* Address pr comments.

* Update proposals/0387-bls-pubkey-management-in-vote-account.md

Co-authored-by: Quentin Kniep <hello@quentinkniep.com>

* Update proposals/0387-bls-pubkey-management-in-vote-account.md

Co-authored-by: Quentin Kniep <hello@quentinkniep.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Joe C <jcaulfield135@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Quentin Kniep <hello@quentinkniep.com>

proposals/0387-bls-pubkey-management-in-vote-account.md

@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+---
+simd: '0387'
+title: BLS Pubkey management in vote account
+authors:
+  - Sam Kim (Anza)
+  - Quentin Kniep (Anza)
+  - Wen Xu (Anza)
+category: Standard
+type: Core
+status: Review
+created: 2025-10-27
+feature: (fill in with feature key and github tracking issues once accepted)
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+This proposal specifies in detail how a BLS public key can be generated by
+users via updated existing tools and how they can put the generated BLS public
+keys into their vote accounts for voting in Alpenglow.
+
+It also describes in detail the data structure changes needed.
+
+## Motivation
+
+The Alpenglow SIMD (326) described the new consensus protocol which will be
+launched on Solana. The protocol requires efficient and safe aggregation of
+validator votes to succinctly prove certain state transitions can safely happen
+(for example, 60% of the validators voted to skip a slot). The ed25519
+signatures we currently use are not the best fit for this purpose, so instead
+we will be using the Boneh–Lynn–Shacham (BLS) aggregate signature scheme to
+sign Alpenglow votes.
+
+However, the BLS public key is entirely different from an ed25519 public key
+(as BLS operates over a different elliptic curve), so we can’t naively reuse
+the current ed25519 public keys in vote accounts either. Each validator must
+add a BLS public key into their vote account before the network enables Alpenglow
+in order to vote.
+
+## New Terminology
+
+N/A
+
+## Dependencies
+
+- Alpenglow is specified in [SIMD 326](https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents/pull/326)
+
+- VoteStateV4 is specified in [SIMD 185](https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents/pull/185)
+and it adds an optional BLS public key field
+
+- Requiring BLS public key for Alpenglow is specified in [SIMD 357](https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents/pull/357)
+
+## Detailed Design
+
+BLS keypairs can be generated randomly like ed25519 keypairs. But to save the
+users some trouble on keypair management, the current plan is to initially
+derive their BLS keypair used in Alpenglow votes based on their ed25519 vote
+keypair. In other words, with an existing ed25519 vote keypair, the operators
+can safely regenerate the associated BLS keypair on demand. Also during
+validator operations, the users still only need to supply the vote keypair as
+before.
+
+The association of BLS keypair with vote authority ed25519 keypair is the
+default client behavior to simplify Alpenglow launch. After Alpenglow launches
+we may get rid of ed25519 vote keypair and allow users to randomly generate BLS
+keypairs.
+
+When users create vote accounts, they must register their BLS public key by
+storing it in the newly created vote account. When they modify their vote
+authority, they must re-register the new corresponding BLS key.
+
+### Changes to vote program
+
+Whenever a new BLS public key is being updated in the vote account, we need
+to perform BLS verification on its validity, see "Security Considerations"
+for details. We plan to implement this by calling BLS library from the vote
+program, see "Alternatives Considered" for comparison with other solutions.
+
+Since BLS verification is expensive (around 1.15ms), each verification will cost
+34,500 CUs. Any Vote program instruction that performs a BLS verification will
+therefore add 34,500 CUs per verification on top of its baseline cost. As a result,
+Vote program instructions - which currently all cost 2,100 CUs - will have
+differentiated CU costs depending on whether they include BLS verification. The
+updated CU values are detailed in later sections.
+
+Note the 34,500 CUs for BLS verification will be consumed immediately before
+the verification is performed.
+
+Currently the vote program is allocated a budget of 3,000 CUs in the validator's
+builtin program cost modeling mechanism. Simple vote transactions (containing a
+`Vote` instruction) already bypass this mechanism, and other Vote program
+instructions that may use BLS verification are fairly infrequent. As a result,
+the Vote program will be removed from builtin program cost modeling.
+
+#### Disallow change of vote authority by old instructions
+
+After the feature gate associated with this SIMD is activated, the previous
+instructions will be disallowed to change vote authority after off-chain tools
+are upgraded, they will result in transaction errors. These include:
+
+- Authorize(Pubkey, VoteAuthorize): when VoteAuthorize is VoteAuthorize::Voter
+and the account has BLS public key it will fail
+
+- AuthorizeWithSeed(VoteAuthorizeWithSeedArgs): when authorization_type is
+VoteAuthorize::Voter and the account has BLS public key it will fail
+
+- AuthorizeChecked(VoteAuthorize): when VoteAuthorize is VoteAuthorize::Voter
+and the account has BLS public key it will fail
+
+- AuthorizeCheckedWithSeed(VoteAuthorizeCheckedWithSeedArgs): when
+authorization_type is VoteAuthorize::Voter and the account has BLS public key
+it will fail
+
+#### Proof of Possession calculation and verification
+
+While a standard Proof of Possession (PoP) is simply a signature over the
+public key itself (`σ=Signsk​(pk)`), this can leave room for "binding theft"
+where a valid PoP is intercepted and registered to an attacker's vote account.
+To prevent this and cross-chain replay, the PoP must sign a domain-separated
+message binding the key to its specific context.
+
+The PoP calculation and verification must use the following message structure:
+
+```rust
+message=label ∣∣ chain_id ∣∣ authorized_voter_pubkey ∣∣ bls_pubkey_bytes
+```
+
+Where: (|| above is concatenation)
+
+- `label` is a constant string, we will make it "ALPENGLOW" here (all upper
+case).
+
+- `chain_id` is the genesis hash of the chain.
+
+- `authorized_voter_pubkey` is the authorized_voter Ed25519 public key.
+
+- `bls_pubkey_bytes` is the compressed new BLS public key (48 bytes).
+
+See "Security Considerations" for why the fields are needed.
+
+During PoP calculation, the CLI will generate the BLS keypair, then use the BLS
+private key to sign this message to generate the signature, compress it, and
+save it in `authorized_voter_bls_proof_of_possession`.
+
+During PoP verification, the validators will construct the same message, then
+check that the `authorized_voter_bls_proof_of_possession` is the correct
+signature.
+
+#### Add InitializeAccountV2
+
+```rust
+InitializeAccountV2(VoteInitV2),
+```
+
+```rust
+pub const BLS_PUBLIC_KEY_COMPRESSED_SIZE: usize = 48;
+pub const BLS_SIGNATURE_COMPRESSED_SIZE: usize = 96;
+
+pub struct VoteInitV2 {
+  pub node_pubkey: Pubkey,
+  pub authorized_voter: Pubkey,
+  pub authorized_voter_bls_pubkey: [u8; BLS_PUBLIC_KEY_COMPRESSED_SIZE],
+  pub authorized_voter_bls_proof_of_possession: [u8; BLS_SIGNATURE_COMPRESSED_SIZE],
+  pub authorized_withdrawer: Pubkey,
+  pub inflation_rewards_commission_bps: u16,
+  pub inflation_rewards_collector: Pubkey,
+  pub block_revenue_commission_bps: u16,
+  pub block_revenue_collector: Pubkey,
+}
+```
+
+Upon receiving the transaction, the vote program will perform a BLS
+verification on submitted BLS public key and associated proof of possession.
+The transaction will fail if the verification failed. Otherwise the new vote
+account is created with given parameters.
+
+#### Add new variant of VoteAuthorize
+
+```rust
+pub struct VoterWithBLSArgs {
+    bls_pub_key: [u8; BLS_PUBLIC_KEY_COMPRESSED_SIZE],
+    bls_proof_of_possession: [u8; BLS_SIGNATURE_COMPRESSED_SIZE],
+}
+
+pub enum VoteAuthorize {
+    Voter,
+    Withdrawer,
+    VoterWithBLS(VoterWithBLSArgs),
+}
+```
+
+Upon receiving the transaction, if the parameter is of the new variant, the
+vote program will perform a BLS verification on submitted BLS public key and
+associated proof of possession. The transaction will fail if the verification
+failed. Otherwise the vote authority change will be recorded in vote account.
+
+## Impact
+
+### Before feature gate in this SIMD is activated
+
+There is no change, users cannot update their BLS public key in vote account.
+
+### After the feature gate in this SIMD is activated but before Alpenglow launch
+
+Users can update their BLS public key in the vote account.
+
+### After Alpenglow launch
+
+Per SIMD 357, only vote accounts with updated BLS public key can participate
+in the voting process.
+
+When starting a validator, the operators are supposed to provide all ed25519
+keypairs like before. The BLS keypair will automatically be derived from the
+vote authority keypair (if that’s missing, then the identity keypair is used
+like now). The operations needed to switch the keypair and the operations
+needed to switch to a standby node are the same as today.
+
+## Security Considerations
+
+The safety of BLS votes in Alpenglow is still guarded by the ed25519 vote
+authority keypair, so users are supposed to safe guard it like before.
+
+We need to have the proof of possession in the instruction inputs so we can
+guard against BLS rogue-key attack. If anyone is allowed to randomly choose a
+public key, then an attacker can select a particular public key which interacts
+with other participants' keys so a forged aggregate signature verifies even
+though not all honest parties actually signed.
+
+We need to put `authorized_voter_pubkey` in Proof of Possession calculation
+because a replay attack exists:
+
+- User A wants to update vote authority, calculates PoP signature
+
+- The attacker sees this PoP signature in the transaction and sends in another
+transaction grabbing the BLS public key before user A
+
+- Now user A cannot use the BLS public key generated for his own vote account
+
+We also add a `label` so in the future we can update the version, and add a
+`chain_id` so attackers can't do cross-chain replay attack.
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+### Moving BLS verification to a syscall and/or a different program
+
+We can put BLS verification into a separate program or into a syscall, this is
+conceptually cleaner.
+
+We choose not to do this now because currently vote program needs to handle
+a lot of vote transactions so it's a native program. We may explore this
+option later if the vote program is migrated to an on-chain BPF program after
+Alpenglow launches.