Skip to main content
Technical proposal SIMD-0297 Review

Relax Invalid Nonced Transactions Constraint

  1. Idea
  2. Draft
  3. Review
  4. Accept
  5. Implement
  6. Active

Decision brief

Why this proposal matters

This proposal relaxes the handling of invalid durable nonce transactions during block replay. Instead of rejecting the entire block when an invalid nonce is encountered, the transaction should be marked as failed, skipped for state modifications, but still committed to the block without charging a transaction fee.

Source-backed reading aid · source language: EN

Proposal at a glance

What changes

  • The nonce account is not a statically included account.
  • The nonce account does not exist.
  • The nonce account is not properly initialized.

Stakeholder map

Who is affected

Builders & client teams Medium impact

The inclusion of the same nonce transaction in multiple blocks may affect RPC behavior, such as querying a transaction by signature. The exact handling of this is outside the scope of this proposal.

Action requirement unknown
Validators & operators Medium impact

This change is not backward compatible with current validator behavior. It must be activated via a feature gate and coordinated with a network upgrade.

Action may be required
Users & stakers Medium impact

Invalid nonce transactions may be included in multiple blocks but will not be charged fees.

Action requirement unknown
Governance & ecosystem Medium impact

The inclusion of the same nonce transaction in multiple blocks may affect RPC behavior, such as querying a transaction by signature. The exact handling of this is outside the scope of this proposal.

Action requirement unknown

Exact source revision

Full proposal document

Source-language document. Technical identifiers and evidence remain unchanged. 0616093b2952

Summary

This proposal relaxes the handling of invalid durable nonce transactions during block replay. Instead of rejecting the entire block when an invalid nonce is encountered, the transaction should be marked as failed, skipped for state modifications, but still committed to the block without charging a transaction fee.

Motivation

The current consensus behavior specifies that invalid durable nonce transactions should result in block failure during replay. This behavior hinders forward compatibility with asynchronous block execution. The goal is to align invalid nonce handling with the treatment of other soft transaction failures (e.g., relax fee payer, relax ALT, etc).

New Terminology

None

Detailed Design

Current Behavior

A transaction using a durable nonce fails block replay (causing the entire block to be rejected) if any of the following occurs:

  • The nonce account is not a statically included account.
  • The nonce account does not exist.
  • The nonce account is not properly initialized.
  • The stored nonce does not match the transaction's recent blockhash.
  • The transaction fails to advance the nonce.

Proposed Change

Update replay logic to handle invalid nonce transactions differently:

  1. For failure that can be checked without accessing account state, namely:

    • The nonce account is not a statically included account.

Replay logic remains unchanged - entire block is rejected;

  1. For failures require account state to verify, namely:

    • The nonce account does not exist.
    • The nonce account is not properly initialized.
    • The stored nonce does not match the transaction's recent blockhash.
    • The transaction fails to advance the nonce.

Replay treats these transactions as non-state-modifying and non-fee-charging failures, as follows:

  • The transaction is not executed.
  • The transaction is not included in status cache.
  • The transaction’s non-execution CU cost (i.e., transaction's static CUs, plus actual CUs for loading accounts) still applies to the block limit.
  • The transaction is recorded in the block (marked as failed).
  • No account state is modified, including the nonce account (i.e., nonce is not advanced) and fee payer account (it is not charged with the transaction's fee).
  • The block is not rejected as long as all other transactions replay successfully.

Alternatives Considered

N/A

Impact

  • Invalid nonce transactions may be included in multiple blocks but will not be charged fees.

  • The inclusion of the same nonce transaction in multiple blocks may affect RPC behavior, such as querying a transaction by signature. The exact handling of this is outside the scope of this proposal.

Security Considerations

The relaxed model still prevents nonce reuse and enforces single-use semantics, as the transaction does not advance the nonce if it fails. There is no impact on replay safety, and the ledger remains consistent across nodes.

Backward Compatibility

This change is not backward compatible with current validator behavior. It must be activated via a feature gate and coordinated with a network upgrade.

Evidence graph

Related proposals and rollout

One or more sources are unavailable.

Upstream review record

Upstream discussion & review

GitHub review is editorial context, not evidence of on-chain support, voting, or outcome.

PR #297 · merged SIMD-0297: Relax Invalid Nonced Transactions Constraint 31 comments and reviews · Jan 12, 2026
@tao-stones

Agree the first check is quick and not state related. Left it here for simplicity as mentioned in "alternatives" section.

GitHub ↗
@apfitzge

I don't think it really adds much complexity though to not relax it though. I'd think relaxing this adds more complexity, which was the whole justification for recently adding this condition in 242

GitHub ↗
@apfitzge

Well I think it does differ from other non-state-changing transactions because it can have multiple instances (many that change no state, and up to one that can). afaict the default behavior in our code rn would be to return the first one that appears, though this is probably misleading since that may not be the one that changes state. if rpcs had to check that makes their job harder.

GitHub ↗
@tao-stones

The complexity, if we must distinguish between different kinds of "invalid-ness", lies in reasoning about which types of invalid nonced transactions should fail the block entirely, and which should simply result in non-state-changing behavior. Thanks for pointing out 242 — note relaxing first condition still preserves 242 function and purpose. If there aren't downsides to including this case among other conditions that are already considered relaxable. I'd lean towards avoid defining different "invalid-ness," as that adds unnecessary confusion for users and complexity for implementers and code maintainers alike.

GitHub ↗
@tao-stones

Yes, this case is different from other relaxed SIMDs because the same nonced transaction can appear in multiple blocks, as noted in the "Impact". My point was that this impact likely goes beyond just RPC queries, and I didn’t think it was necessary to enumerate every special case. However, it might be helpful to explicitly highlight this RPC example. How about to add a sub-bullet like: - The inclusion of the same nonced transaction in multiple blocks may affect RPC behavior, such as querying a transaction by signature. The exact handling of this is outside the scope of this proposal.

GitHub ↗
@tao-stones

per our discussion, updated to exclude stateless failure from being relaxed. at 3ae6737d21bee572c4608dc0b16051f7501a4aeb

GitHub ↗
@tao-stones

@ 6b825d62dc807f676e65cd264647fc13fc1e272b

GitHub ↗
@apfitzge

nit: please update to "may" be included, there's not a requirement that it is.

GitHub ↗

simd.watch community discussion · SIMD-0297

Powered by Giscus · Sign in with GitHub to comment

Community comments load when this section approaches the viewport.

Provenance

Evidence & technical details

Rollout or chain data, source revisions, freshness and integrity.
1

SIMD

Deployment Status

Document lifecycleReview
CategoryCore protocol

Feature Gate not yet created

Exact source revision

Sources & integrity

  • Proposal document pinned_commit_blob
    0616093b2952ed6de52c4a27d66aadd11d48d4f9
  • simd-document document · current · Sep 11, 2026
    0616093b2952ed6de52c4a27d66aadd11d48d4f9

One or more sources are unavailable.