Skip to content
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

Problem: Transaction ordering #84

Open
VictorTrustyDev opened this issue Jan 13, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Problem: Transaction ordering #84

VictorTrustyDev opened this issue Jan 13, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement Enhancement / bug-fixes or re-work on old feature

Comments

@VictorTrustyDev
Copy link
Member

VictorTrustyDev commented Jan 13, 2024

Current issue:

  • When an account broadcast many transactions at a time (with nonce increament), there is high chance that most of the txs will be failed to execute due to nonce check, that caused by un-ordered by sequence when executing txs.
  • When trace transaction, the data is not accurate if there is Cosmos Txs before or in the middle of the txs that modified store and trace tx can not simulate that.

That caused by the reason that current Tendermint/CometBFT version we are using, does not support re-order the transactions.

Possible solution:

  • ABCI 2.0. As I understood, PrepareProposal would help us with the ability to modify the txs bytes, that we can used to re-order the txs as the following orders:
    • EVM txs first
    • Within EVM txs, follow Ethereum's order.
    • Any others if applicable
@VictorTrustyDev VictorTrustyDev added the enhancement Enhancement / bug-fixes or re-work on old feature label Jan 13, 2024
@VictorTrustyDev VictorTrustyDev self-assigned this Jan 13, 2024
@VictorTrustyDev VictorTrustyDev changed the title Problem: transaction ordering Problem: Transaction ordering Jan 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Enhancement / bug-fixes or re-work on old feature
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant