BOXFoundation/boxd: consensus/bpos/bft_service.go; 5 LoC

Found a possible issue in [BOXFoundation/boxd](https://www.github.com/BOXFoundation/boxd) at [consensus/bpos/bft_service.go](https://github.com/BOXFoundation/boxd/blob/dad397ba9f92c18c35c05e444d6aa24c45d3532c/consensus/bpos/bft_service.go#L204-L208)

Below is the message reported by the analyzer for this snippet of code. Beware that the analyzer only reports the first issue it finds, so please do not limit your consideration to the contents of the below message.

> reference to v is reassigned at line 206

[Click here to see the code in its original context.](https://github.com/BOXFoundation/boxd/blob/dad397ba9f92c18c35c05e444d6aa24c45d3532c/consensus/bpos/bft_service.go#L204-L208)

Click here to show the 5 line(s) of Go which triggered the analyzer.

```go
for _, v := range dynasty.delegates {
if v.Addr == addr && msg.From().Pretty() == v.PeerID {
delegate = &v
}
}

```

Leave a reaction on this issue to contribute to the project by classifying this instance as a **Bug** :-1:, **Mitigated** :+1:, or **Desirable Behavior** :rocket:
See the descriptions of the classifications [here](https://github.com/github-vet/rangeclosure-findings#how-can-i-help) for more information.

commit ID: dad397ba9f92c18c35c05e444d6aa24c45d3532c

Read consensus/bpos/bft_service.go around lines 204-208 and inspect the surrounding delegate lookup and range-variable usage. Check the reported analyzer finding against the relevant Go behavior, then run any applicable Go tests or checks available in the repository. Done means the finding is resolved or its behavior is documented as intentional, with validation passing.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.