Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

[ETCM-426] Changed the gas limit strategy to a constant one #820

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 30, 2020

Conversation

ntallar
Copy link

@ntallar ntallar commented Nov 27, 2020

Description

Our current strategy is to always increase the gas limit of our blocks as much as possible which in our current cluster setup resulted in:

  • Exposed a bug on web3, as that big a number was being properly shown by the explorer
  • Means that after 20k blocks 900k million txs could be sent per block, which is very attackable

Proposed Solution

  • The genesis gas limit was set to the ETC mainnet value: 8 million
  • The miners strategy was changed to always set the gas limit of blocks to the same as the parent

For future tasks

A proper voting strategy (with a target as other clients) should be set up

Testing

Start up the node and mine a couple blocks, check that all the blocks have a gasLimit of 8 million

…the genesis of cluster to ETC's 8 million gas limit
@ntallar ntallar added the BREAKS STATE Affects self state retro-compatibility, needs data wiping label Nov 27, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@mirkoAlic mirkoAlic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@ntallar ntallar marked this pull request as ready for review November 27, 2020 19:05
@ntallar ntallar merged commit 4638db2 into develop Nov 30, 2020
@ntallar ntallar deleted the etcm-426-miner-gas-limit-voting-strategy branch November 30, 2020 12:52
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
BREAKS STATE Affects self state retro-compatibility, needs data wiping
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants