This document describes the lifecycle of a transaction from creation to committed state changes. Transaction definition is described in a different doc. The transaction is referred to as
One of the main application interfaces is the command-line interface. The transaction
Tx can be created by the user inputting a command in the following format from the command-line, providing the type of transaction in
[command], arguments in
[args], and configurations such as gas prices in
[appname] tx [command] [args] [flags]
This command automatically creates the transaction, signs it using the account's private key, and broadcasts it to the specified peer node.
There are several required and optional flags for transaction creation. The
--from flag specifies which account the transaction is originating from. For example, if the transaction is sending coins, the funds are drawn from the specified
Gas and Fees
--gasrefers to how much gas, which represents computational resources,
Txconsumes. Gas is dependent on the transaction and is not precisely calculated until execution, but can be estimated by providing
autoas the value for
--gas-adjustment(optional) can be used to scale
gasup in order to avoid underestimating. For example, users can specify their gas adjustment as 1.5 to use 1.5 times the estimated gas.
--gas-pricesspecifies how much the user is willing to pay per unit of gas, which can be one or multiple denominations of tokens. For example,
--gas-prices=0.025uatom, 0.025uphomeans the user is willing to pay 0.025uatom AND 0.025upho per unit of gas.
--feesspecifies how much in fees the user is willing to pay in total.
--timeout-heightspecifies a block timeout height to prevent the tx from being committed past a certain height.
The ultimate value of the fees paid is equal to the gas multiplied by the gas prices. In other words,
fees = ceil(gas * gasPrices). Thus, since fees can be calculated using gas prices and vice versa, the users specify only one of the two.
Later, validators decide whether or not to include the transaction in their block by comparing the given or calculated
gas-prices to their local
Tx is rejected if its
gas-prices is not high enough, so users are incentivized to pay more.
Users of the application
app can enter the following command into their CLI to generate a transaction to send 1000uatom from a
senderAddress to a
recipientAddress. The command specifies how much gas they are willing to pay: an automatic estimate scaled up by 1.5 times, with a gas price of 0.025uatom per unit gas.
appd tx send <recipientAddress> 1000uatom --from <senderAddress> --gas auto --gas-adjustment 1.5 --gas-prices 0.025uatom
Other Transaction Creation Methods
The command-line is an easy way to interact with an application, but
Tx can also be created using a gRPC or REST interface or some other entry point defined by the application developer. From the user's perspective, the interaction depends on the web interface or wallet they are using (e.g. creating
Tx using Lunie.io and signing it with a Ledger Nano S).
Addition to Mempool
Each full-node (running CometBFT) that receives a
Tx sends an ABCI message,
CheckTx, to the application layer to check for validity, and receives an
abci.ResponseCheckTx. If the
Tx passes the checks, it is held in the node's
Mempool, an in-memory pool of transactions unique to each node, pending inclusion in a block - honest nodes discard a
Tx if it is found to be invalid. Prior to consensus, nodes continuously check incoming transactions and gossip them to their peers.
Types of Checks
The full-nodes perform stateless, then stateful checks on
CheckTx, with the goal to
identify and reject an invalid transaction as early on as possible to avoid wasted computation.
Stateless checks do not require nodes to access state - light clients or offline nodes can do them - and are thus less computationally expensive. Stateless checks include making sure addresses are not empty, enforcing nonnegative numbers, and other logic specified in the definitions.
Stateful checks validate transactions and messages based on a committed state. Examples include checking that the relevant values exist and can be transacted with, the address has sufficient funds, and the sender is authorized or has the correct ownership to transact. At any given moment, full-nodes typically have multiple versions of the application's internal state for different purposes. For example, nodes execute state changes while in the process of verifying transactions, but still need a copy of the last committed state in order to answer queries - they should not respond using state with uncommitted changes.
In order to verify a
Tx, full-nodes call
CheckTx, which includes both stateless and stateful
checks. Further validation happens later in the
through several steps, beginning with decoding
Tx is received by the application from the underlying consensus engine (e.g. CometBFT ), it is still in its encoded
byte form and needs to be unmarshaled in order to be processed. Then, the
runTx function is called to run in
runTxModeCheck mode, meaning the function runs all checks but exits before executing messages and writing state changes.
sdk.Msg) are extracted from transactions (
ValidateBasic method of the
sdk.Msg interface implemented by the module developer is run for each transaction.
To discard obviously invalid messages, the
BaseApp type calls the
ValidateBasic method very early in the processing of the message in the
ValidateBasic can include only stateless checks (the checks that do not require access to the state).
BaseApp still calls
ValidateBasic on messages that implements that method for backwards compatibility.
ValidateBasic should not be used anymore. Message validation should be performed in the
Msg service when handling a message in a module Msg Server.
AnteHandlers even though optional, are in practice very often used to perform signature verification, gas calculation, fee deduction, and other core operations related to blockchain transactions.
A copy of the cached context is provided to the
AnteHandler, which performs limited checks specified for the transaction type. Using a copy allows the
AnteHandler to do stateful checks for
Tx without modifying the last committed state, and revert back to the original if the execution fails.
For example, the
AnteHandler checks and increments sequence numbers, checks signatures and account numbers, and deducts fees from the first signer of the transaction - all state changes are made using the
Context, which keeps a
GasMeter that tracks how much gas is used during the execution of
Tx, is initialized. The user-provided amount of gas for
Tx is known as
GasConsumed, the amount of gas consumed during execution, ever exceeds
GasWanted, the execution stops and the changes made to the cached copy of the state are not committed. Otherwise,
GasUsed equal to
GasConsumed and returns it in the result. After calculating the gas and fee values, validator-nodes check that the user-specified
gas-prices is greater than their locally defined
Discard or Addition to Mempool
If at any point during
Tx fails, it is discarded and the transaction lifecycle ends
there. Otherwise, if it passes
CheckTx successfully, the default protocol is to relay it to peer
nodes and add it to the Mempool so that the
Tx becomes a candidate to be included in the next block.
The mempool serves the purpose of keeping track of transactions seen by all full-nodes.
Full-nodes keep a mempool cache of the last
mempool.cache_size transactions they have seen, as a first line of
defense to prevent replay attacks. Ideally,
mempool.cache_size is large enough to encompass all
of the transactions in the full mempool. If the mempool cache is too small to keep track of all
CheckTx is responsible for identifying and rejecting replayed transactions.
Currently existing preventative measures include fees and a
sequence (nonce) counter to distinguish
replayed transactions from identical but valid ones. If an attacker tries to spam nodes with many
copies of a
Tx, full-nodes keeping a mempool cache reject all identical copies instead of running
CheckTx on them. Even if the copies have incremented
sequence numbers, attackers are
disincentivized by the need to pay fees.
Validator nodes keep a mempool to prevent replay attacks, just as full-nodes do, but also use it as
a pool of unconfirmed transactions in preparation of block inclusion. Note that even if a
passes all checks at this stage, it is still possible to be found invalid later on, because
CheckTx does not fully validate the transaction (that is, it does not actually execute the messages).
Inclusion in a Block
Consensus, the process through which validator nodes come to agreement on which transactions to
accept, happens in rounds. Each round begins with a proposer creating a block of the most
recent transactions and ends with validators, special full-nodes with voting power responsible
for consensus, agreeing to accept the block or go with a
nil block instead. Validator nodes
execute the consensus algorithm, such as CometBFT,
confirming the transactions using ABCI requests to the application, in order to come to this agreement.
The first step of consensus is the block proposal. One proposer amongst the validators is chosen
by the consensus algorithm to create and propose a block - in order for a
Tx to be included, it
must be in this proposer's mempool.
The next step of consensus is to execute the transactions to fully validate them. All full-nodes
that receive a block proposal from the correct proposer execute the transactions by calling the ABCI functions
DeliverTx for each transaction,
EndBlock. While each full-node runs everything
locally, this process yields a single, unambiguous result, since the messages' state transitions are deterministic and transactions are
explicitly ordered in the block proposal.
|Receive Block Proposal|
| BeginBlock |
| DeliverTx(tx0) |
| DeliverTx(tx1) |
| DeliverTx(tx2) |
| DeliverTx(tx3) |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| EndBlock |
| Consensus |
| Commit |
DeliverTx ABCI function defined in
BaseApp does the bulk of the
state transitions: it is run for each transaction in the block in sequential order as committed
to during consensus. Under the hood,
DeliverTx is almost identical to
CheckTx but calls the
runTx function in deliver mode instead of check mode.
Instead of using their
checkState, full-nodes use
DeliverTxis an ABCI call,
Txis received in the encoded
byteform. Nodes first unmarshal the transaction, using the
TxConfigdefined in the app, then call
runTxModeDeliver, which is very similar to
CheckTxbut also executes and writes state changes.
AnteHandler: Full-nodes call
AnteHandleragain. This second check happens because they may not have seen the same transactions during the addition to Mempool stage and a malicious proposer may have included invalid ones. One difference here is that the
AnteHandlerdoes not compare
gas-pricesto the node's
min-gas-pricessince that value is local to each node - differing values across nodes yield nondeterministic results.
DeliverTxcontinues to run
runMsgsto fully execute each
Msgwithin the transaction. Since the transaction may have messages from different modules,
BaseAppneeds to know which module to find the appropriate handler. This is achieved using
MsgServiceRouterso that it can be processed by the module's Protobuf
Routefunction is called via the module manager to retrieve the route name and find the legacy
Handlerwithin the module.
Msgservice is responsible for executing each message in the
Txand causes state transitions to persist in
PostHandlers run after the execution of the message. If they fail, the state change of
runMsgs, as well of
PostHandlers, are both reverted.
Gas: While a
Txis being delivered, a
GasMeteris used to keep track of how much gas is being used; if execution completes,
GasUsedis set and returned in the
abci.ResponseDeliverTx. If execution halts because
GasMeterhas run out or something else goes wrong, a deferred function at the end appropriately errors or panics.
If there are any failed state changes resulting from a
Tx being invalid or
GasMeter running out,
the transaction processing terminates and any state changes are reverted. Invalid transactions in a
block proposal cause validator nodes to reject the block and vote for a
nil block instead.
The final step is for nodes to commit the block and state changes. Validator nodes perform the previous step of executing state transitions in order to validate the transactions, then sign the block to confirm it. Full nodes that are not validators do not participate in consensus - i.e. they cannot vote - but listen for votes to understand whether or not they should commit the state changes.
When they receive enough validator votes (2/3+ precommits weighted by voting power), full nodes commit to a new block to be added to the blockchain and
finalize the state transitions in the application layer. A new state root is generated to serve as
a merkle proof for the state transitions. Applications use the
ABCI method inherited from Baseapp; it syncs all the state transitions by
deliverState into the application's internal state. As soon as the state changes are
checkState starts afresh from the most recently committed state and
nil in order to be consistent and reflect the changes.
Note that not all blocks have the same number of transactions and it is possible for consensus to
result in a
nil block or one with none at all. In a public blockchain network, it is also possible
for validators to be byzantine, or malicious, which may prevent a
Tx from being committed in
the blockchain. Possible malicious behaviors include the proposer deciding to censor a
excluding it from the block or a validator voting against the block.
At this point, the transaction lifecycle of a
Tx is over: nodes have verified its validity,
delivered it by executing its state changes, and committed those changes. The
byte form, is stored in a block and appended to the blockchain.