-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 333
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
Ethereum Core Devs Meeting 118 Agenda #354
Comments
I am not sure I will be able to join the meeting, but I would like to say that there was an interesting discovery made during the Ropsten incident, which we need to be aware of. In general, I think we need to have a better understanding about "what we are going to do if X happens?" where X is any of the issues that happened on the test-net. Yes, it is unpleasant to think about it, but we need some pre-decisions to relieve Geth devs from the responsibility to make all the hard decisions on the spot, which would be incredibly stressful. P.S. I have implemented functionality in Erigon today to be able to go back before any bad block in the past (and used it to repair Ropsten), but unfortunately we did not finish mining support for Erigon yet. And even if we did, it would take a while for miners to adopt our code. So this is not a proposed solution, but just extra info that such functionality may be possible to have. |
Ropsten incident also highlights another potential issue that may apply to many implementations (including currently Erigon). It seems that in the network where there are two competing chains co-existing, the minority parts seems to be very unstable, with nodes disconnecting each other and reconnecting all the time. This may be related to what I have observed I think: some nodes are propagating blocks/headers even though they are not on their best chain. This leads to these nodes being kicked out (disconnected) by other nodes on the correct chain. I am going to think how to make our implementation a bit more robust, but perhaps other needs to take a look as well. |
If time permits would like to make announcements for upcoming PEEPanEIP meetings for Merge & Block Gas Limit. |
That's not correct. There are basically a couple of things that can happen during a fork. I'll outline a couple of scenarios, Synced node followed wrong chainYou were running Problem description; The node is still on the 'bad' chain. Syncing in the presence of a wrong higher-td chainYou are syncing a In this case, a resync is required. However, you need to prevent geth from winding up on the wrong side of the fork. This can be done with the
So you'd do The whitelist means that geth, when peering with another peer, will ask the peer "what's your block |
Closed in favor of #365 |
Does anyone have some clear instructions on how to actually fix your node if you upgraded after the split? With the actual numbers? I am running 1.10.8, and upgraded after the split. I noticed that the balances on my Ropsten node did not match those on MetaMask and Etherscan a couple of days ago, and that my block height was higher than Etherscan's, so clearly I was on the wrong chain. But 3.5 GHsh of hashing power was going into continuing that chain, so there are clearly other people still mining away on it too. The Meeting 118.md article confusingly talks about Ropsten and then lists Mainnet blocks and hashes at the end. I thought I had understood the issue and how to correct it, and did the following:
Instead of a fixed chain, what I got was a segmentation violation error:
I'm now using the following whitelist parameter and resyncing from scratch instead:
I hope I've got that right. |
Meeting Info
Agenda
gasPrice
for 1559 transactions. Comments against it:gasPrice
field for both legacy and EIP-1559 transactions execution-specs#251 (comment)gasPrice
field for both legacy and EIP-1559 transactions execution-specs#251 (comment)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: