-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Using Transaction Nonce to indicate transaction order. #2861
Comments
Duplicates #1502. |
@roman-khimov So, is deterministic transactions order worth a discussion? |
Even though that discussion had happened quite some time ago I doubt a lot has changed. Nonce is useful as it is now, it's just it has zero relation to E-letter chain transaction nonce. Notice also that Even if we'd like to do it, I don't think we can introduce this behavior into existing networks without a new transaction format, at least not without a new attribute for it. I'd try |
If we consider that transactions are fully homogeneous distributed among peers and consensus I believe this will not open space for attacks that delay blocks. |
If we're to consider this behavior in the context of block delays caused by network inconsistency then it's just not a solution, accounts are not limited (this also rules out any per-sender mempool partitioning approaches). |
I think what he is saying, is to have |
Summary or problem description
Currently, the nonce filed in the transaction is of no actual use. Maybe we can use it to indicate user transaction orders. This would be useful for anti-MEV services or other transaction order-sensitive applications.
Do you have any solution you want to propose?
Make nonce an increment field and update the Consensus to order transactions (of the same user) by nonces.
Neo Version
Where in the software does this update applies to?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: