fix(fraud): invalid sig is not a fraud

[danwt]

PR Standards

Opening a pull request should be able to meet the following requirements

--

PR naming convention: https://hackmd.io/@nZpxHZ0CT7O5ngTp0TP9mg/HJP_jrm7A

---

Close #1160

<-- Briefly describe the content of this pull request -->

For Author:

• Targeted PR against correct branch
• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design
• Targets only one github issue
• Wrote unit and integration tests
• All CI checks have passed
• Added relevant godoc comments

---

For Reviewer:

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• Reviewers assigned
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed

---

After reviewer approval:

• In case targets main branch, PR should be squashed and merged.
• In case PR targets a release branch, PR should be rebased.

[srene]

Im thinking, that in case of p2p block, its true that invalid signature is not a fraud.
But in case of block applied from da, can it not be considered a fraud in this case (since we know the block is coming from the sequencer)? i guess can be considered equivalent to blob corrupted fraud or non-matching batch info fraud...
actually, in case of p2p block i think fraud detection caused by signature will never happen because the block will be discarded in p2p block validation because invalid signature and it will never by validated before apply.
Therefore, i think its fine in leaving invalid signature as a fraud, since it will only happen when applying blocks from da.

[danwt]

@srene I was thinking similar but I think the code is messier as is right now.
How about a check in ValidateDaBlocks which converts an ErrInvalidSignature to a fraud?

[srene]

@srene I was thinking similar but I think the code is messier as is right now. How about a check in ValidateDaBlocks which converts an ErrInvalidSignature to a fraud?

Imo is better to keep fraud detection for invalid signature in da block. if you think is better to have specific signature check in ValidateDaBlocks, instead of leaving the code as it is, im ok with that.

[mtsitrin]

maybe set wrap ErrFault? so it will trigger the fraud handler

[danwt]

Gonna close, it, not worth worrying about