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

L1: TX Spammer gets more transactions included when it hits another node's RPC #1449

Open
rodrigo-o opened this issue Dec 10, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@rodrigo-o
Copy link
Collaborator

With the same setup, if the first node is not our own there are more transactions included on the second phase of every spam. For detailed info read the first comment

@rodrigo-o
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Spammer execution
As part of the spammer configuration we have two important parameters --accounts(a) and --txcount(b), accounts are the amount of accounts affected by transactions, and txcount the amount of transactions send per any account. The spammer works in a 2 step process, first it send 1 tx for every account, which ends up in the first block a a number of transactions. If those succeed it send txcount transactions for each account, ie a x b number of transactions in a subsequent block.

Right now we are not sharing tx through p2p so we are the only ones receiving them, otoh if we are not the first client in the kurtosis yaml, that one receives them and given we are not processing them yes just the other clients get access to those. This shows the first difference between our current state and for example geth.

Diff 1: Amount of Transactions
Given the previous explanation if we configure the spammer with --txcount=2 --accounts=100, we'll see an initial block with 100 tx, a follow up one with 200 tx, and a repeat ad infinitum. Geth displays this behaviour, but in our case we have an initial one of 100 and the second one between 100~140. I'll create a new issu to track this, we are rejecting or ignoring some of those transactions. What i was able to validate is that they are not filtered out, at least as far as I could check, so they were rejected prior to being added to the mempool.

@rodrigo-o rodrigo-o moved this to In Progress in ethrex_l1 Dec 10, 2024
@rodrigo-o rodrigo-o added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 10, 2024
@rodrigo-o rodrigo-o self-assigned this Dec 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant