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

Require two consecutive successful productions when counting witnesses for LIB #2473

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

theoreticalbts
Copy link
Contributor

@theoreticalbts theoreticalbts commented May 18, 2018

This code implements the "Discount missing witnesses" solution for issue #2471.

PR #2472 is a dependency of this PR and should be merged before this PR.

@theoreticalbts
Copy link
Contributor Author

I rebased out PR #2472, see discussion in #2469 for reasons why. This PR now stands ready to review/merge on its own.

Copy link
Contributor

@mvandeberg mvandeberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This PR does not change tests yet still passes them. Due to the nature of the changes, this means that irreversibility tests either a) do not exist, or b) are not sufficient to detect significant changes in our irreversibility algorithm. From my reading of the code, these changes look good, but I would feel much better if they were accompanied by tests. A hard requirement is the scenario described in the EOS issue to show that these changes solve that problem.

w.total_missed++;
if( has_hardfork( STEEM_HARDFORK_0_14__278 ) )
if( (_dgp.head_block_number - w.last_confirmed_block_num > STEEM_BLOCKS_PER_DAY)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Whitespace

// increase for any blocks they missed in the gap.
// Also, this prevents initminer from having a large total_missed.
//

w.total_missed++;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be wrapped in the if( witness_missed.owner != b.witness ) conditional to preserve existing behavior.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants