Frederik
Frederik
#5581 partially resolves the issue. What it's doing can be read there. - [ ] fix #5581 to be merged - [ ] implement the confirmation for partner’s old messages...
This is also partly covering #6824
I would like to add an additional concern to this topic. Even though we probably do not need to have some keep alive in order to keep the connection open,...
Update: The error in the LC library does not seem to happen anymore. Besides that `keepalive` must be planned together with the LC as a feature although I'm still not...
I also do get the `consent checks` fail from time to time. This was also described in the linked issue. So it might be the case that our implementation, again,...
Do you remember what the failure looked like? I received ICE consent check failed a couple of times after a while
IIRC we decided to not have this feature for now.
> Since it is possible that multiple transactions will get mined, the total cumulative gas-cost sent must not be higher than the economic value the transaction is representing (e.g. balances...
> What I meant is "topup" transactions, that represent the same action we want to take, but (hopefully) supersede the older, pending transaction. There is the possibility that both the...
> I wonder how all the front-running bots do this - there must be quite some research and competing algorithms in this field To my knowledge, these bots simply scan...