Read on Twitter
thread/
Pangolin triggered a very low probability error in the network. A bug that could not be understood in these tests, as there is no way to replicate a dynamic, live environment (even with the best testing tools) by thousands of users trying to use every function.
$AVAX https://twitter.com/avaxoshi/status/1359831970214121473
Pangolin triggered a very low probability error in the network. A bug that could not be understood in these tests, as there is no way to replicate a dynamic, live environment (even with the best testing tools) by thousands of users trying to use every function.
$AVAX https://twitter.com/avaxoshi/status/1359831970214121473
Apparently, there is an error in the code surrounding the EVM that causes a bad block in the c-chain when transferring from x-chain to c-chain. This error occurs ONLY when importing from x-chain to c-chain.
Nothing else was affected. The import issue was not decisive and unlikely to happen, but the error arose because the c-chain saw insanely high traffic & was stress tested. This error caused the whole network to panic.
Because Avalanche focused on security rather than vitality, the network automatically locked down while trying to heal itself. Similar errors have occurred in chains like #Bitcoin 
and $ZEC before.
and $ZEC before.
It should be noted that this error mostly affects p-chain and c-chain. The x-chain, which is DAG, continued to transact over the network, although its speed was greatly reduced as the network was busy trying to constantly improve with failed polling.
Q & A:
Q: Is this a fundamental protocol issue?
A: Absolutely not! This is a validation consistency error, just like what happened to $BTC and $ZEC.
Q: Is this a fundamental protocol issue?
A: Absolutely not! This is a validation consistency error, just like what happened to $BTC and $ZEC.
Q: Does this mean Avalanche cannot scale?
A: This has nothing to do with the Avalanche protocol. Avalanche worked exactly as intended. The code linking Avalanche and EVM did not work as intended.
A: This has nothing to do with the Avalanche protocol. Avalanche worked exactly as intended. The code linking Avalanche and EVM did not work as intended.
Q: Does this mean Avalanche is centralized?
A: quite the opposite! There is no single party in Avalanche that can change the network state unilaterally. If Avalanche were centralized, the problem would be solved instantly by restarting the situation and overriding bad blocks.
A: quite the opposite! There is no single party in Avalanche that can change the network state unilaterally. If Avalanche were centralized, the problem would be solved instantly by restarting the situation and overriding bad blocks.
Instead, the patch requires a network-wide coordinated network upgrade since there is no single party with one-sided control. This is a feature of decentralized systems that value security more than vitality.
Q: What does this mean for Avalanche? Will this happen again?
A: This is a stress test, very important to make the Avalanche as bulletproof as possible. Other errors will also be discovered,
A: This is a stress test, very important to make the Avalanche as bulletproof as possible. Other errors will also be discovered,
But the more high loads Avalanche is subjected to in real production environments, the better it will be for its long-term survival.
These are critical moments that create network stability.
The more stress-tested the Avalanche is, the stronger it becomes.
The more stress-tested the Avalanche is, the stronger it becomes.
Most importantly, the blockchain did not stop. The X chain is the only chain in many blockchains. C chain or smart contract chain stopped.
Credits @bit_gossip
Thanks to twitter translate function
Source of thread. https://twitter.com/bit_gossip/status/1359937147470512136
Thanks to twitter translate function
Source of thread. https://twitter.com/bit_gossip/status/1359937147470512136
