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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I guess this additional clause can be incorrect if 1559 isn't activated in some private chains?
Personally I will prefer to not have it. It's more like a check from chain's perspective(basefee must cost something), but not from the txpool's perspective(enough funds to cover the expense).
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.
Sounds reasonable. Let me see if I can check with eip1559 here or check it outside
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.
Historically, it has been possible to send transactions from empty accounts, but we (geth) don't like it and have tried to prevent it (but it's been allowed by consensus). I think adding this check is in line with our previous stance, that we try to avoid it. It leads to unexpected quirks.
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.
Well, it's kind of impossible to set a 0 gas price on our pool, so the balance check in the next line will fail. I'm not a fan of adding checks for stuff that cannot happen really.
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.
@karalabe but it did happen in the Goerli and Sepolia testnet. see the reproduce script in #27833 (comment)
and here is a simple sepolia docker-compose
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.
I guess that check is not performed for local transactions, @karalabe ?