TransactionError when using Brownie on Optimism - Tx dropped without known replacement - ethereum

I have a Python script using Brownie that occasionally triggers a swap on Uniswap by sending a transaction to Optimism Network.
It worked well for a few days (did multiple transactions successfully), but now each time it triggers a transaction, I get an error message:
TransactionError: Tx dropped without known replacement
However, the transaction goes through and get validated, but the script stops.
swap_router = interface.ISwapRouter(router_address)
params = (
weth_address,
dai_address,
3000,
account.address,
time.time() + 86400,
amount * 10 ** 18,
0,
0,
)
amountOut = swap_router.exactInputSingle(params, {"from": account})

There is a possibility that one of your methods seeks data off-chain and is being called prematurely before the confirmation is received.
I had the same problem, and I managed to sort it out by adding
time.sleep(60)
at the end of the function that seeks for data off-chain

"Dropped and replaced" means the transaction is being replaced by a new one, Eth is being overloaded with a new gas fee. My guess is that you need to increase your gas costs in order to average the price.

Related

Setting gas for transaction on Ethereum when interacting with smart contract

I am using web3-eth-contract package to connect to contract on Ethereum. I am executing it's methods by:
contract.methods
.methodName(ids)
.send({
to: address,
from: address
})
The problem is that I get:
After that I tried to add gasLimit there:
contract.methods
.methodName(ids)
.send({
to: address,
from: address,
gasLimit: 300000,
})
and it worked fine when I use methods that require only simple arguments. When I use methods where I pass array of arguments and there are more arguments than 2 transactions are being cancelled. What should I pass to gasLimit or how can I estimate it so it will work every time?
The gas used to execute the transaction may depend on your parameters, so what you experience is totally reasonable.
Now, to know what gasLimit to set you need to know what the transaction is doing and how much gas it is expected to burn. You can take one of the following approaches:
set the gasLimit very high, so that your transaction is always executed
check the older transactions to the same contract and see how much gas they burnt
use the transaction format after the London Uprade and specify max ETH you are willing to pay for the transaction (maxFeePerGas) instead of setting gasLimit

Difference between Receipt & Confirmation callbacks

I'd like to verify programmatically that a transaction was successful - that is the Etherum network itself recognizes that for a given transaction hash, it was valid.
Using web3.eth.sendSignedTransaction returned a promise, there's two events - one 'confirmation', the other 'receipt'.
Can I rely on the 'receipt' callback to ascertain that a transaction truly occurred? Or do I have to rely on the 'confirmation' call back as well? If so - how?
Similarly, reading getTransactionReceipt it mentions that -
The receipt is not available for pending transactions and returns null.
So, if I do get a receipt then - it means the transaction is no longer 'pending' ? That is, was successful?
_So, if I do get a receipt then - it means the transaction is no longer 'pending' ? That is, was successful?
When the receipt becomes available (or the event is handled in your case), it means that the transaction was mined into a block.
But the tx could have been reverted (if it was a tx to a smart contract that reverted it for some reason). Check the receipt field status
true means that the transaction was successful
false means it was reverted
Mind that the status is not included in pre-Byznatium (October 2017) transactions and can also be missing in some future transaction types. See more about the transaction types in this answer.

Solidity gas estimation - always out of gas when setting to 0

I'm trying to figure out a solution to this problem, to do with transaction confirmation order and setting values to 0
pragma solidity ^0.5.17;
contract Test {
uint256 amount;
constructor() public {}
function join() public {
amount += 100;
}
function leave() public {
amount -= 100;
}
}
Given these transactions (tested on ropsten):
tx 1) Call Join Confirmed
amount == 100
tx 2) Call Join (gas price 1) Pending
amount == 100 should tx3 get mined first
tx 3) Call Leave (gas price 100) Pending
amount == 0
However tx 2 will always fail with an out of gas error for as long as the amount is set back to 0. This doesn't happen if the value is any higher than 0. My understanding is that it costs more gas to set a value to its 0 state instead of a positive integer, and the gas estimation isn't taking this into account. I've tried delete hoping this would give a gas refund to compensate for the too-low gas limit, but it still failed.
Is there an elegant way to handle this scenario? The only ways I can think of are over-estimating the gas for all join transactions, which has its obvious drawbacks, or never setting amount back to 0.
You are making correct observations.
by setting it to 0 you delete storage, and get gas refund. This is why it takes less amount of gas. But gas refunds have top limit, so you can't use it to store ETH.
It costs 20,000 gas to store one value in a slot (source:https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/d13c59fef0926af0ef0cff0a2e793f95d46442f0/params/protocol_params.go#L41 )
it costs 2,200 gas to load one value from a storage slot (source: https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/d13c59fef0926af0ef0cff0a2e793f95d46442f0/params/protocol_params.go#L89)
That's why you are seeing different gas consumption values.
Just set your gasLimit to some empirically found roughly-estimated value.
Do a trace of your transaction and you will see all gas consumption values.
Now, the way gas refunds work is that during the state transition function, you're asked for the full gas for the run of your contract. During this run, all gas refunds are accumulated in StateDB (temporary state object). At the end of the state transition function, you will get refunds for all storage releases your contract is going to make. This is why you have to set higher gas limit that Etherscan shows, because lets say your contract needs 15,000 gas to run, after storage is released (say for 5,000 gas) , Etherscan will show like the transaction needed 10,000 gas. This is not true because you have got gas refunds at the end, but at the beginning you needed the whole amount of gas (15,000). Gas refunds are sponsored by the miner, his account is going to get less ETH because he is paying you these refunds.

What gasPrice to use to deploy contract on congested ethereum mainnet

I am attempting to deploy a contract onto the Ethereum mainnet, I have specified:
network_id: 1,
provider: infura,
gas: 5000000,
gasPrice: 140
And I continuously get the errors:
Error: Contract transaction couldn't be found after 50 blocks
or
transaction underpriced
Is this because the mainnet is so congested, miners are not picking up my transaction within the 50 block period?
What gas/gasPrices have other people successfully used on the mainnet?
You can check current gas price at https://ethgasstation.info/ for example. Note that gas price is usually shown in Gwei. So 21 Gwei is 21000000000 wei or 0.000021 eth.
To expand on Andrey's answer, your gas is WAY too low. Historically, you will typically need to pay around 10-20 Gwei to have your transaction mined in an average amount of time. If you can wait 10s of minutes or even hours, you can get away with ~5Gwei. If you need the transaction to execute fast, or if you just want an average transaction time when the network is really congested, you're probably looking at ~40Gwei.
You can programmatically set your gas price based on the median gas price of the most recent mined blocks using web3.eth.getGasPrice(callback). Source.

Why Gas Used By Txn is different when invoking the same function in the same smart contract?

I have seen some transactions in etherscan.io.But I have found that even invoking the same function in the same smart contract, the gas used by txn are different.I try to found that maybe the input data result in it.Really?
The input data might be different, but also the state stored in the smart contract might be different (and change e.g. the number of times a loop iterates). Also, if storing nonzero data in a state variable that previously held zero data, or vice versa, will change the gas usage. For example, a simple function that toggles a boolean variable will not use the same amount of gas on any two consecutive calls.
Check out https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/ for future questions like this!
Each time you invoke a function in contract that requires state change in the block,it would cost x amount of gas , so every time you call different or same function in a contract that requires a state change,you would see that x amount of gas is being deducted along with its taxation Id.This is the reason you see different Txn on same function.
More about Gas and Transaction in the link below. http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/introduction-to-smart-contracts.html