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

Inconsistent Voting behaviour #43

Closed
magooster opened this issue Jan 23, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Inconsistent Voting behaviour #43

magooster opened this issue Jan 23, 2017 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@magooster
Copy link

According to the Consensus section of the document, voter nodes will vote when they receive a newly generated block via the standard Ethereum P2P protocol (ChainHeadEvent). However they also appear to vote on the block generation event (CreateBlock).

E0120 21:44:49.886387 core/quorum/block_voting.go:288] Unable to create block: Node not configured for block creation
I0120 21:44:49.886915 core/quorum/block_voting.go:388] vote for 0xbb889fee70776551d79d7d65f6b5c3b1c932e15f63e3dba40b95b071e
495cab5 on height 8

As all nodes run the BlockMakerStrategy, looking in core/quorum/block_voting.go, in the run function for the CreateBlock event case it would seem that any voter node that is not enabled for block creation (i.e. createBlock will fail) will then always attempt to vote for the hash of the parent block of its current pending state.

@bas-vk
Copy link
Contributor

bas-vk commented Feb 12, 2017

Thanks for reporting this. You are correct and this is something that needs to be addressed. It is not something that can lead to consensus problems but it leads to spurious transactions.

@patrickmn
Copy link
Contributor

Please see #266

baptiste-b-pegasys pushed a commit to quorumbot/quorum that referenced this issue Jun 23, 2021
- Fix a type Consensys#43
- Add customizable string generators
- Fix bug of NilChange(0) Consensys#47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants