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

beta8 does not sync from 0 because of invalid fee #2123

Closed
webmaster128 opened this issue Jun 12, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
5 participants
@webmaster128
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 12, 2018

Expected behavior

I can sync Lisk core 1.0.0 beta8 from 0.

Actual behavior

I cannot because transaction fee 0.2 LSK is invalid in beta8:

[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 7394235070789641271 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79329
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 14054580713752926378 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79330
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 10779762741533737465 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79331
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 17851845741917469888 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79332
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 17152401697141352645 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79333
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 17871391059391247805 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79334
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 9841274020591204295 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79335
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 15004809231924026772 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79336
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 7766393263444915478 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79337
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:00 | Block 5739034833826764173 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79338
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 14654432173624677537 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79339
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 9531049119931207855 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79340
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 652044279897365212 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79341
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 6534773222692857889 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79342
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 13979955812968563275 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79343
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 6078457968829396318 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79344
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 11642429653506660964 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79345
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 18197727510380003769 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79346
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 9255084596767171680 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79347
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Block 5745526898782252151 loaded from: 159.89.127.157:5001 - height: 79348
[ERR] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Error loading blocks: Invalid transaction fee
[ERR] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Failed to load blocks from: 159.89.127.157:5001
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Looking for common block with: 209.97.136.139:5001
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Found common block: 5745526898782252151 with: 209.97.136.139:5001
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Loading blocks from: 209.97.136.139:5001
[ERR] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Error loading blocks: Invalid transaction fee
[ERR] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Failed to load blocks from: 209.97.136.139:5001
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Broadhash consensus now 1 %
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:01 | Finished sync
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:04 | Releasing enqueued broadcasts
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:04 | Queue empty
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:09 | Releasing enqueued broadcasts
[inf] 2018-06-12 17:16:09 | Queue empty

Block of height 79349 (https://betanet-explorer.lisk.io/block/2055581814775780130) contains one (probably the first) transaction with fee 0.2.

Steps to reproduce

Sync a beta8 node from 0

Which version(s) does this affect? (Environment, OS, etc...)

beta8


Let me quote a wise man from the community on this topic:

Would it be possible to respawn Betanet after this change to avoid carrying around a special rule (0.2 fee type 0 transactions) that will never be needed in a production network?

#2033

@webmaster128

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 12, 2018

Debug log of the block height 79349 processing (different node, same behavior): https://gist.github.com/webmaster128/88b2e9be52481cb33990931e8deaa0d2

@hendrikhofstadt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 12, 2018

I agree that there should not be an extra rule to accept the 0.2 fee on betanet especially because this edge case is exclusive to the betanet and would require chain specific magic numbers in the code.

I second the initiative to restart the betanet from height 0.

@hirishh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 12, 2018

With this issue and with no working snapshot we are out of forging. So yes or we restart betanet or we need to relax that check (but it's like leaving dust in the code)

@MaciejBaj MaciejBaj added the bug label Jun 13, 2018

@MaciejBaj MaciejBaj added this to Open Issues in Version 1.0.0 via automation Jun 13, 2018

@MaciejBaj MaciejBaj added this to New Issues in Sprint Board 06-06-18 via automation Jun 13, 2018

@MaciejBaj MaciejBaj added this to the Version 1.0.0-beta.9 milestone Jun 13, 2018

@MaciejBaj

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 13, 2018

Beta.8 removes the additional data fee #2033.
5 type 0 transactions with additional data fee were sent on Betanet:

          id          |   fee
----------------------+----------
 15429910859603286865 | 20000000
 14352150066958672690 | 20000000
 13937635495177593105 | 20000000
 12218027223346052530 | 20000000
 15330085901178121679 | 20000000

1.0.0-beta.9 will add all type 0 transaction with additional 0.1 fees per data to exceptions.

@MaciejBaj MaciejBaj closed this in 7ca5dd4 Jun 13, 2018

Version 1.0.0 automation moved this from Open Issues to Closed Issues Jun 13, 2018

Sprint Board 06-06-18 automation moved this from New Issues to Closed Issues Jun 13, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.