mirror of
https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint.git
synced 2026-09-21 07:24:36 +00:00
spelling corrections
Co-authored-by: Lasaro Camargos <lasaro@informal.systems>
This commit is contained in:
co-authored by
Lasaro Camargos
parent
477be5b2ea
commit
909989809d
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ cannot lie about who the sender of the transaction is.
|
||||
|
||||
*Transactions received from users*
|
||||
|
||||
For transactions submitted via `boradcastTxCommit`, the `SenderID` field is empty.
|
||||
For transactions submitted via `broadcastTxCommit`, the `SenderID` field is empty.
|
||||
|
||||
**Note** Do we have mechanisms in place to handle cases when `broadcastTxCommit` submits
|
||||
failing transactions (can this be a form of attack)?
|
||||
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ The question is which one is more costly, doing `CheckTx` more then once, or kee
|
||||
|
||||
As said, this code will [never be executed](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/blob/ff0f98892f24aac11e46aeff2b6d2c0ad816701a/mempool/v0/clist_mempool.go#L239) for transactions whose signature is found
|
||||
in the cache.
|
||||
Instead of remembering the cached transactions, we could have had a valid/invalit bit per transaction within the cache. As transactions themselves do not
|
||||
Instead of remembering the cached transactions, we could have had a valid/invalid bit per transaction within the cache. As transactions themselves do not
|
||||
store such information and we expect this scenario to be unlikely, instead of increasing the footprint of all transactions in the cache,
|
||||
we opted to keep a map of transaction signature if the transaction is in the cache, but is invalid. Alternatively, the cache could keep two lists, one for valid, and one for invalid transactions.
|
||||
This modifies the following pieces of code as follows (this is just a prototype and does not include
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user