# SUAVE Consensus **URL:** https://collective.flashbots.net/t/suave-consensus/2152 **Category:** SUAVE **Tags:** open-problem, consensus, suave **Created:** [August 4, 2023, 5:26pm UTC](https://collective.flashbots.net/t/suave-consensus/2152 "2023-08-04T17:26:00Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 5
### Author: ![Quintus](https://collective.flashbots.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/q/49beb7/32.png) [@Quintus](https://collective.flashbots.net/u/Quintus) #### Post date: [November 23, 2023, 8:48pm UTC](https://collective.flashbots.net/t/suave-consensus/2152/5 "2023-11-23T20:48:27Z")
FYI there’s an [update on consensus here](https://collective.flashbots.net/t/current-thinking-for-consensus/2695) > So is it fair to assume that not all kettles/TEEs will pick up all TXs from the suave chain mempool? Yes! > `confidential compute request` this is the name we use for messages sent by users directly to kettles as opposed to transactions which go to chain. Rigil is a bit different from the end design in that users send compute requests and then these trigger transactions being forwarded to the chain. > Similarly, is the reason why we care about censorship resistance that suave TXs specify a kettle address rather than all kettles doing the computations and forming consensus on the results on the suave chain? We care about censorship resistance because applications like auctions happen in kettles and kettle operators can filter traffic at the network layer, blocking bids from entering the auction. --- _[View the full topic](https://collective.flashbots.net/t/suave-consensus/2152)._