Metamask-extension: Nonce too low on fresh install

[kumavis]

User reports getting "nonce too low" error when sending from a fresh install

[kumavis]

@ColinLeath Hmm interesting. You have this issue every time you use metamask or only in a certain case?

[ColinLeath]

I'll try again in a while. I've just been trying to use the mkr.market
exchange. Last night I got stuck at increasing my allowance. This morning
increasing the allowance worked, but trying to add a buy order led to the
error I mentioned.

On Feb 2, 2017 12:37 PM, "kumavis" [e-mail] wrote:

@ColinLeath https://github.com/ColinLeath Hmm interesting. You have this
issue every time you use metamask or only in a certain case?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-plugin/issues/1081#issuecomment-277075985,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMJYdHyFQvEPi_N3-xgaRA6uly3sAymQks5rYj6MgaJpZM4L1muf
.

[ColinLeath]

I'm now using metamask on galliumOS (linux for chromebooks). I was able to
place an order at mkr.market yesterday. As well as make a transation at
etherplay. All this with the same account I was using before.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Colin Leath [e-mail] wrote:

I'll try again in a while. I've just been trying to use the mkr.market
exchange. Last night I got stuck at increasing my allowance. This morning
increasing the allowance worked, but trying to add a buy order led to the
error I mentioned.

On Feb 2, 2017 12:37 PM, "kumavis" [e-mail] wrote:

@ColinLeath https://github.com/ColinLeath Hmm interesting. You have
this issue every time you use metamask or only in a certain case?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-plugin/issues/1081#issuecomment-277075985,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMJYdHyFQvEPi_N3-xgaRA6uly3sAymQks5rYj6MgaJpZM4L1muf
.

[kumavis]

If this issue comes up again let us know : )

[dskvr]

This issue appears in MetaMask if using a loose address that has recently been used in another wallet.

How to replicate

1. Generate wallet on MEW
2. Load loose wallet into MM
3. Send a tx from MM _shouldn't have any problems_
4. Load wallet into MEW and send a tx _shouldn't have any issues_
5. Go back to MM and try to send tx _I've been able to replicate this issue with consistency, you should get "nonce too low" error_

Example Use case

You're using a MetaMask enabled interface, but the server hosting it goes down. Because of this, you need to interface with contract directly. You go to MEW, and call a function, etc. You then decide to pay the contract through metamask (ease of use), and get this error.

Test Case with LOOSE wallet

I was attempting to replicate a user issue and was able to replicate after testing different situations.

1. Sent TX from MM, .2222ETH _no problems_
2. Sent TX from MEW _needed to execute contract_
3. Sent TX from MM, .11 _nonce too low_

Note: It does appear to self-correct over time, as one would expect.

[kumavis]

@dskvr metamask doesnt currently handle the same priv key being used in multiple places, requires a restart. we've done some refactoring recently that will make solving that problem easier. expect to see that soon.

[kumavis]

@dskvr Also im team lead and I'll happily boot anyone from the slack thats being a dick!

[kumavis]

here is the eos dapp making hundreds of requests (per user)
in potato gif quality

[dskvr]

@kumavis To be fair, I was responding to you being a dick. Also, was I wrong that reading constant functions don't stress the blockchain, they stress the node? My intent on visiting was to discourage people from spamming the channel with things that had nothing to do with MetaMask. But I digress, it's your house, so fair enough.

Yeah, I saw that, looks like poor high level design. On the low level, they have constant functions they were using as getters for mapped values in the contract in order to illustrate their contract details. With 341 rows and two requests per row, that's a bit much. Instead, they should have aggregated those details server-side with a refresh on a private node, and then left MetaMask to signing, etc.

But that's not the purpose of this issue.

[danfinlay]

Hey @dskvr I was on the side of your debate, and the original thing that made the conversation sound off is that you blamed Ethereum's tx throughput for the EOS bomb, which definitely gave a wrong impression of your level of understanding (given that now I've seen you answered all kinds of similar questions for other users).

I think we've all been doing a ridiculous amount of user support, and so we've had to get a little quicker at filtering out rude users. Once we smooth through this EOS issue, I wouldn't mind seeing some reconciliation if people can manage to be kind again.

[dskvr]

@flyswatter Understood. I was being needlessly defensive and dropped Ethereum's network limits in a belligerent and irrelevant fashion. I can understand kicks, I've dealt with hundred's of trolls over the last couple weeks, in fact pretty sure it has taken a toll on my communicative abilities and potentially has pushed me into a temporary emotional low-point. In the grand scheme of things, we're all on the same team.

[kumavis]

@dskvr you can recreate your account on metamask slack if you'd like

[step21]

Sorry to resurrect this, but I have this on an old account imported into metamask, that hasn't been used in quite a while. It was only recently 'looked at' to check if there was anything on it, but the last transaction was over a year ago.
Can provide etherscan link and update if it should fix itself in a while.