Closes: #4530
This PR contains logic for both submitting an evidence by the light client (lite2 package) and receiving it on the Tendermint side (/broadcast_evidence RPC and/or EvidenceReactor#Receive). Upon receiving the ConflictingHeadersEvidence (introduced by this PR), the Tendermint validates it, then breaks it down into smaller pieces (DuplicateVoteEvidence, LunaticValidatorEvidence, PhantomValidatorEvidence, PotentialAmnesiaEvidence). Afterwards, each piece of evidence is verified against the state of the full node and added to the pool, from which it's reaped upon block creation.
* rpc/client: do not pass height param if height ptr is nil
* rpc/core: validate incoming evidence!
* only accept ConflictingHeadersEvidence if one
of the headers is committed from this full node's perspective
This simplifies the code. Plus, if there are multiple forks, we'll
likely to receive multiple ConflictingHeadersEvidence anyway.
* swap CommitSig with Vote in LunaticValidatorEvidence
Vote is needed to validate signature
* no need to embed client
http is a provider and should not be used as a client
This is a location to record all high-level architecture decisions in the tendermint project.
You can read more about the ADR concept in this blog post.
An ADR should provide:
Context on the relevant goals and the current state
Proposed changes to achieve the goals
Summary of pros and cons
References
Changelog
Note the distinction between an ADR and a spec. The ADR provides the context, intuition, reasoning, and
justification for a change in architecture, or for the architecture of something
new. The spec is much more compressed and streamlined summary of everything as
it stands today.
If recorded decisions turned out to be lacking, convene a discussion, record the new decisions here, and then modify the code to match.
Note the context/background should be written in the present tense.