-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 677
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
Add timestamp calculation to all block responses #5470
Merged
jferrant
merged 7 commits into
feat/time-based-tenure-extend
from
chore/calc-tenure-idle-timestamp-with-config
Nov 18, 2024
Merged
Add timestamp calculation to all block responses #5470
jferrant
merged 7 commits into
feat/time-based-tenure-extend
from
chore/calc-tenure-idle-timestamp-with-config
Nov 18, 2024
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <jacinta@trustmachines.co>
jferrant
commented
Nov 16, 2024
jferrant
commented
Nov 16, 2024
obycode
reviewed
Nov 18, 2024
…acks-network/stacks-core into chore/calc-tenure-idle-timestamp-with-config
Links to #5467 |
…tart Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <jacinta@trustmachines.co>
Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <jacinta@trustmachines.co>
…tamp Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <jacinta@trustmachines.co>
jferrant
changed the base branch from
chore/add-timestamp-to-block-response
to
feat/time-based-tenure-extend
November 18, 2024 18:56
Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <jacinta@trustmachines.co>
obycode
reviewed
Nov 18, 2024
obycode
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2024
jferrant
force-pushed
the
chore/calc-tenure-idle-timestamp-with-config
branch
from
November 18, 2024 20:13
6f6b4b6
to
32d7808
Compare
Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <jacinta@trustmachines.co>
hstove
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
First pass. Haven't tested this at all and this was just first thoughts. EDIT: Initially way over-complicating things and assumed that we should respond to a block proposal based on who the current sortition winner is. However, if a miner proposes a block proposal that does not link to the correct consensus hash (odds are it will be rejected first off), it does not actually really matter. We will simply let the proposing miner know that the tenure extend for that timestamp has passed or not. It only matters that a valid sortition winner knows this for a valid proposal/valid attempt to tenure change. This simplified things a lot as I could just respond to every block proposal based on its provided consensus hash.