You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When epoch changes, we stop casting our own votes and proposing transactions.
But currently, we still process others' votes (these votes will appear in our blocks' causal history) -- namely, aggregating them and checking for certificate formation.
Is it safe to stop processing others' votes? This would translate to essentially not calling the BlockHandler::handle_block method when we are changing the epoch.
Relevant original discussion : #11 (review) and #11 (comment) and #11 (review)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 6:05 PM Kushal Babel ***@***.***> wrote:
When epoch changes, we stop casting our own votes and proposing
transactions.
But currently, we still process others' votes (these votes will appear in
our blocks' causal history) -- namely, aggregating them and checking for
certificate formation.
Is it safe to stop processing others' votes? This would translate to
essentially not calling the BlockHandler::handle_block method when we are
changing the epoch.
Relevant original discussion : #11 (review)
<#11 (review)>
and #11 (comment)
<#11 (comment)>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#17>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAWVVQIUCMXLKCYTSAFUHNLXTUMU7ANCNFSM6AAAAAA3EM5FKA>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
When epoch changes, we stop casting our own votes and proposing transactions.
But currently, we still process others' votes (these votes will appear in our blocks' causal history) -- namely, aggregating them and checking for certificate formation.
Is it safe to stop processing others' votes? This would translate to essentially not calling the
BlockHandler::handle_block
method when we are changing the epoch.Relevant original discussion : #11 (review) and #11 (comment) and #11 (review)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: