## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
We have plenty of block space. Having `fallbackfee` disabled by default
is needlessly annoying.
## What was done?
Bump `DEFAULT_FALLBACK_FEE` to `1000`, same as it is on `master`
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/wallet/wallet.h#L68
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, send txes on testnet
## Breaking Changes
should be none
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPC help for mempoolentry incorrectly called the "instantsend" field
"time". The "instantsend" and "unbroadcast" fields were also in a
different order than the actual response.
## What was done?
Changed "time" -> "instantsend" and flipped order of
"instantsend"/"unbroadcast"
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built and checked locally
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation of MnEhfTx is not matched with DIP-0023, this PR
fixes it. It is a prior work for
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## What was done?
- requestID is fixed from `clsig{quorumHeight}` to `mnhf{versionBit}` +
fixes for signature validation properly
- v20 is minimal height to accept MnEHF special transactions
- versionBit is not BLS version - removed unrelated wrong code and
validations
- TxMempool will accept MnEHF transaction even if inputs/outputs are
zeroes and no fee
- implemented python's serialization/deserialization of MnEHF
transactions for future using in functional tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests. Beside that there's new functional test in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469 that actually test format of
transaction and signature validation - to be merged later.
## Breaking Changes
Payload of MnEhf tx is changed, related consensus rules are changed.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
f827e151a2ce96e14aadb9e7d25045fe0a8afbd2 refactor: remove straggling boost::mutex usage (fanquake)
Pull request description:
After the merge of #18710, the linter is warning:
```bash
A new Boost dependency in the form of "boost/thread/mutex.hpp" appears to have been introduced:
src/sync.cpp:#include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp>
src/test/sync_tests.cpp:#include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp>
^---- failure generated from test/lint/lint-includes.sh
```
#18710 removed `boost/thread/mutex.hpp` from lint-includes, however in the interim #19337 was merged, which introduced more `boost::mutex` usage.
Given we no longer use `boost::mutex`, just remove the double lock test and remaining includes.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK f827e151a2ce96e14aadb9e7d25045fe0a8afbd2
hebasto:
ACK f827e151a2ce96e14aadb9e7d25045fe0a8afbd2
Tree-SHA512: f738b12189fe5b39db3e8f8231e9002714413a962eaf98adc84a6614fa474df5616358cfb1c89b92a2b0564efa9b704a774c49d4a25dca18a0ccc3cd9eabfc0a
89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d RPC/Wallet: unloadwallet: Allow specifying wallet_name param matching RPC endpoint (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Allow specifying the `wallet_name` param to `unloadwallet` on RPC wallet endpoints, so long as it matches the endpoint wallet.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 89bdad5b25ae4ac03a486f729a5b58ae6f21946d
Tree-SHA512: efb399c33f7b5596870a26a8680f453ca47aa7a6db4e550f9435d13044f1c4bad0ae11e8f0205213409d08b75c4188c3be782e54aafab1f65b97eb8cf5c252a9
95975dd08d8fdaaeaf28e0d06b861ce2748c17b6 sync: detect double lock from the same thread (Vasil Dimov)
4df6567e4cbb4677e8048de2f8008612e1b860b9 sync: make EnterCritical() & push_lock() type safe (Vasil Dimov)
Pull request description:
Double lock of the same (non-recursive) mutex from the same thread would produce an undefined behavior. Detect this from `DEBUG_LOCKORDER` and react similarly to the deadlock detection.
This came up during discussion in another, related PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19238#discussion_r442394521.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
code review ACK 95975dd08d8fdaaeaf28e0d06b861ce2748c17b6
hebasto:
re-ACK 95975dd08d8fdaaeaf28e0d06b861ce2748c17b6
Tree-SHA512: 375c62db7819e348bfaecc3bd82a7907fcd8f5af24f7d637ac82f3f16789da9fc127dbd0e37158a08e0dcbba01a55c6635caf1d8e9e827cf5a3747f7690a498e
fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c net: Treat raw message bytes as uint8_t (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Using `uint8_t` from the beginning when messages are `recv`ed has two style benefits:
* The signedness is clear from reading the code, as it does not depend on the architecture
* When passing the bytes on, the need for static signedness casts is dropped, making the code a bit less verbose and more coherent
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c
theStack:
Code Review ACK fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c
jonatack:
Tested ACK fabecce71909c984504c21fa05f91d5f1b471e8c
Tree-SHA512: e6d9803c78633fde3304faf592afa961ff9462a7912d1da97a24720265274aa10ab4168d71b6ec2756b7448dd42585321afee0e5c889e705be778ce9a330d145
fa5ed3b4ca609426b2622cad235e107d33db7b30 net: Use Span in ReceiveMsgBytes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Pass a data pointer and a size as span in `ReceiveMsgBytes` to get the benefits of a span
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK fa5ed3b4ca609426b2622cad235e107d33db7b30 code review, rebased to current master 12a1c3ad1a43634, debug build, unit tests, ran bitcoind/-netinfo/getpeerinfo
theStack:
ACK fa5ed3b4ca609426b2622cad235e107d33db7b30
Tree-SHA512: 89bf111323148d6e6e50185ad20ab39f73ab3a58a27e46319e3a08bcf5dcf9d6aa84faff0fd6afb90cb892ac2f557a237c144560986063bc736a69ace353ab9d
6927933782acb9b158787e6f35debb916793f6b1 [net processing] Add ChainSyncTimeoutState default initializers (John Newbery)
55966e0cc03f0e380d21a9434b048d4d515b6729 [net processing] Remove CNodeState ctor body (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This addresses the two outstanding review comments from #21370.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK 6927933782acb9b158787e6f35debb916793f6b1: patch looks correct
hebasto:
ACK 6927933782acb9b158787e6f35debb916793f6b1, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged.
Tree-SHA512: b3ef5c8a096e447887df255406b3a760f01c73e2b942374595416b4b4031fc69b89cd93168c45040489d581f340b2a62d3fbabd207d4307f587c00a7a7daacd1
c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2 refactor: Extract ParseOpCode from ParseScript (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Seems more natural to have `mapOpNames` "hidden" in `ParseOpCode` than in `ParseScript`.
A second lookup in `mapOpNames` is also removed.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2
theStack:
re-ACK c92387232f750397da7d131f262c150a608408c2
Tree-SHA512: d59d1964760622cf365479d44e3e676aa0bf46b60e77160140d967e012042df92121d3224c7551dc96eff5ff3294598cc6bade82adb3f60d28810e18e60e1257
33330778230961cfbf2a24de36b5877e395cc596 rpc: Adjust witness-tx deserialize error message (MarcoFalke)
cccc7525697e7b8d99b545e34f0f504c78ffdb94 rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Signing a transaction can only happen when the transaction has inputs. A transaction with inputs can always be deserialized as witness-transaction. If `try_no_witness` decoding is attempted, this will lead to rare intermittent failures.
Fixes#18803
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 33330778230961cfbf2a24de36b5877e395cc596
ajtowns:
ACK 33330778230961cfbf2a24de36b5877e395cc596
Tree-SHA512: 73f8a5cdfe03fb0e68908d2fa09752c346406f455694a020ec0dd1267ef8f0a583b8e84063ea74aac127106dd193b72623ca6d81469a94b3f5b3c766ebf2c42b
9d09132be4ff99f98ca905c342347d5f35f13350 CConnman: initialise at declaration rather than in Start() (Anthony Towns)
Pull request description:
Ensure nMaxOutboundTotalBytesSentInCycle and nMaxOutboundCycleStartTime are initialized even if CConnman::Start() is not called. Prevents failures in test/fuzz/connman when run under valgrind.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK 9d09132be4ff99f98ca905c342347d5f35f13350: patch looks correct!
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 9d09132be4ff99f98ca905c342347d5f35f13350 , checked that we call Start only once and in the same scope where connman is constructed (AppInitMain) 💸
jnewbery:
Code review ACK 9d09132be4
Tree-SHA512: 1c6c893e8c616a91947a8cc295b0ba508af3ecfcdcd94cdc5f95d808cc93c6d1a71fd24dcc194dc583854e9889fb522ca8523043367fb0263370fbcab08c6aaa
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixes issue #5497.
## What was done?
Checks if settings file is empty, and deletes it if that's the case.
It will will be generated with default value `{}` afterwards.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Running Dash Qt on regtest masternode with `--nocleanup` and
`./src/qt/dash-qt --regtest --datadir=`
## Breaking Changes
No
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The logic for additional indexes is incomplete, handling of P2PK on
block disconnect is broken (luckily no one is using P2PK and reorgs are
rare) and there are a few other small issues that would be nice to have
fixed.
## What was done?
Pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run `feature_dbcrash.py`, it should succeed (NOTE: it takes ~30 minutes
to complete, that's normal).
Run `feature_addressindex.py`, `feature_timestampindex.py` and
`feature_spentindex.py` (and other tests) should still succeed too.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This is an implementation of DIP0027 "Credit Asset Locks".
It's a mechanism to fluidly exchange between Dash and credits.
## What was done?
This pull request includes:
- Asset Lock transaction
- Asset Unlock transaction (withdrawal)
- Credit Pool in coinbase
- Unit tests for Asset Lock/Unlock tx
- New functional test `feature_asset_locks.py`
RPC: currently locked amount (credit pool) is available through rpc call
`getblock`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
There added new unit tests for basic checks of transaction validity
(asset lock/unlock).
Also added new functional test "feature_asset_locks.py" that cover
typical cases, but not all corner cases yet.
## Breaking Changes
This feature should be activated as hard-fork because:
- It adds 2 new special transaction and one of them [asset unlock tx]
requires update consensus rulels
- It adds new data in coinbase tx (credit pool)
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**To release DIP 0027**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Refusing to process `dsq` will result in node not being able to process
`dstx`es later.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
V19 is active on mainnet/testnet now, no need to check activation bits
anymore. This PR also bumps `MinBIP9WarningHeight` to
post-v19-activation height which should stop `unknown new rules
activated (versionbit 8)` warning from appearing.
## What was done?
Bury v19, bump `MinBIP9WarningHeight`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests, reindex on mainnet/testnet.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
d76925478efd35e6fd835370639f2139b28381e4 [doc] Clarify semantic of peer's m_protect w.r.t to outbound eviction logics (Antoine Riard)
ac71fe936da290adf5a3155fe8db5f78b485f1f1 [doc] Clarify scope of eviction protection of outbound block-relay peers (Antoine Riard)
Pull request description:
Block-relay-only peers were introduced by #15759. According to its
author, it was intented to make them only immune to outbound peer
rotation-based eviction and not from all eviction as modified comment
leans to think of.
Clearly indicate that outbound block-relay peers aren't protected
from eviction by the bad/lagging chain logic.
Fix#19863
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK d76925478efd35e6fd835370639f2139b28381e4
jonatack:
ACK d76925478efd35e6fd835370639f2139b28381e4
Tree-SHA512: 597fbd62838a6e39276024165b11514cad20a2e9d33cf9202d261cbadcb62b2df427c858e0cb57e585840d4c1d4600104aa53916bb868541f2580e4eed9b4b52
fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b doc: Document that wallet salvage is experimental (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
See #20151
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b: user safety first
hebasto:
ACK fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b, maybe capitalize into "WARNING"?
meshcollider:
Trivial ACK fab94534b64593be1620c989bf69eb02e1be9b1b
Tree-SHA512: 94912c491facc485293e4333066057933d706d84c7172f615296e7ba998c583c8bd07e751e6f00cd6576e7791007ace321f959181f7bf6a4e15e10d7ec8a1b7e
fc289b7898fb90d4800675b69c0bb9b42df5599f wallet: Refactor WalletRescanReserver to use wallet reference (João Barbosa)
Pull request description:
Simple refactor to `WalletRescanReserver` to use wallet reference instead of pointer.
Complements #18259.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK fc289b7898fb90d4800675b69c0bb9b42df5599f
Tree-SHA512: b03e33f2d9df2870436aa3284137fd022dd89ea96a1b170fa27f8685ad4f986e6c4ba5975a84966c30d18430a4014d7d8740a1dff2f985c9ef8226ed18e69db9
a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0 test: Improve naming and logging of avoid_reuse tests (Fabian Jahr)
1abbdac6777bc5396d17a6772c8176a354730997 wallet: Prefer full destination groups in coin selection (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
Fixes#17603 (together with #17843)
In the case of destination groups of >10 outputs existing in a wallet with `avoid_reuse` enabled, the grouping algorithm is adding left-over outputs as an "incomplete" group to the list of groups even when a full group has already been added. This leads to the strange behavior that if there are >10 outputs for a destination the transaction spending from that will effectively use `len(outputs) % 10` as inputs for that transaction.
From the original PR and the code comment I understand the correct behavior should be the usage of 10 outputs. I opted for minimal changes in the current code although there maybe optimizations possible for cases with >20 outputs on a destination this sounds like too much of an edge case right now.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
Re-ACK a2324e4
achow101:
ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0
kallewoof:
ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0
meshcollider:
Tested ACK a2324e4d3f47f084b07a364c9a360a0bf31e86a0 (verified the new test fails on master without this change)
Tree-SHA512: 4743779c5d469fcd16df5baf166024b1d3c8eaca151df1e8281b71df62b29541cf7bfee3f8ab48d83e3b34c9256e53fd38a7b146a54c79f9caa44cce3636971a
d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac Upgrade or rewrite encrypted key checksums (Andrew Chow)
c9a9ddb4142af0af5f7b1a5ccd13f8e585007089 Set fDecryptionThoroughlyChecked based on whether crypted key checksums are valid (Andrew Chow)
a8334f7ac39532528c5f8bd3b0eea05aa63e8794 Read and write a checksum for encrypted keys (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Adds a checksum to the encrypted key record in the wallet database so that encrypted keys can be checked for corruption on wallet loading, in the same way that unencrypted keys are. This allows for us to skip the full decryption of keys upon the first unlocking of the wallet in that session as any key corruption will have already been detected. The checksum is just the double SHA256 of the encrypted key and it is appended to the record after the encrypted key itself.
This is backwards compatible as old wallets will be able to read the encrypted key and ignore that there is more data in the stream. Additionally, old wallets will be upgraded upon their first unlocking (so that key decryption is checked before we commit to a checksum of the encrypted key) and a wallet flag set indicating that. The presence of the wallet flag lets us skip the full decryption as if `fDecryptionThoroughlyChecked` were true.
This does mean that the first time an old wallet is unlocked in a new version will take much longer, but subsequent unlocks will be instantaneous. Furthermore, corruption will be detected upon loading rather than on trying to send so wallet corruption will be detected sooner.
Fixes#12423
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
code review ACK d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac
jonatack:
Code review ACK d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac
meshcollider:
Code review ACK d67055e00dd90f504384e5c3f229fc95306d5aac
Tree-SHA512: d5c1c10cfcb5db9e10dcf2326423565a9f499290b81f3155ec72254ed5bd7491e2ff5c50e98590eb07842c20d7797b4efa1c3475bae64971d500aad3b4e711d4
25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401 doc: add release notes for explicit fee estimators and bumpfee change (Karl-Johan Alm)
05227a35545d7656450874b3668bf418c73813fb tests for bumpfee / estimate_modes (Karl-Johan Alm)
3404c1b753432c4859a4ca245f01c240610a00cb policy: optional FeeEstimateMode param to CFeeRate::ToString (Karl-Johan Alm)
6fcf4484302d13bd7739b617470d8c8e31974908 rpc/wallet: add two explicit modes to estimate_mode (Karl-Johan Alm)
b188d80c2de9ebb114da5ceea78baa46bde7dff6 MOVEONLY: Make FeeEstimateMode available to CFeeRate (Karl-Johan Alm)
5d1a411eb12fc700804ffe5d6e205234d30edd5f fees: add FeeModes doc helper function (Karl-Johan Alm)
91f6d2bc8ff4d4cd1b86daa370ec9d2d9662394d rpc/wallet: add conf_target as alias to confTarget in bumpfee (Karl-Johan Alm)
69158b41fc488e4f220559da17a475eff5923a95 added CURRENCY_ATOM to express minimum indivisible unit (Karl-Johan Alm)
Pull request description:
This lets users pick their own fees when using `sendtoaddress`/`sendmany` if they prefer this over the estimators.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 25dac9fa65: rebased, more fancy C++,
jonatack:
ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df2 I think this should be merged after all this time, even though it looks to me like there are needed follow-ups, fixes and test coverage to be added (see further down), which I don't mind helping out with, if wanted.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 25dac9fa65243ca8db02df22f484039c08114401
Tree-SHA512: f31177e6cabf3187a43cdfe93477144f8e8385c7344613743cbbd16e8490d53ff5144aec7b9de6c9a65eb855b55e0f99d7f164dee4b6bf3cfea4dce51cf11d33
fab860aed4878b831dae463e1ee68029b66210f5 fuzz: Stop nodes in process_message* fuzzers (MarcoFalke)
6666c828e072a5e99ea0c16394ca3e5b9de07409 fuzz: Give CNode ownership to ConnmanTestMsg in process_message fuzz harness (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Background is that I saw an integer overflow in net_processing
```
#30629113 REDUCE cov: 25793 ft: 142917 corp: 3421/2417Kb lim: 4096 exec/s: 89 rss: 614Mb L: 1719/4096 MS: 1 EraseBytes-
net_processing.cpp:977:25: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 2147483624 + 100 cannot be represented in type 'int'
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior net_processing.cpp:977:25 in
net_processing.cpp:985:9: runtime error: signed integer overflow: -2147483572 - 100 cannot be represented in type 'int'
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior net_processing.cpp:985:9 in
```
Telling from the line numbers, it looks like `nMisbehavior` wrapped around.
Fix that by calling `StopNodes` after each exec, which should clear the node state and thus `nMisbehavior`.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fab860aed4878b831dae463e1ee68029b66210f5
Tree-SHA512: 891c081d5843565d891aec028b6c27ef3fa39bc40ae78238e81d8f784b4d4b49cb870998574725a5159dd03aeeb2e0b9bc3d3bb51d57d1231ef42e3394b2d639
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Here's TODO that seems out-dated
```
/// TODO: all 4 functions do not belong here really, they should be refactored/moved somewhere (main.cpp ?)
```
This changes are extracted from this PR:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5342
## What was done?
This changes hides some methods from global namespace (making local
static function), hiding other functions to the namespace
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## What was done?
write in logs of TxMempool tx's hashes instead whole txes
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Legacy IS messages are gone long time ago, no need to keep them in code.
## What was done?
Drop `MSG_LEGACY_TXLOCK_REQUEST`/`LEGACYTXLOCKREQUEST`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
5 minute profiling shows previous usage around ~7% and current usage
around ~2%
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Due to us rapidly receiving multiple duplicates of DSQueue's, we start
processing them before it's added the the vector of processed ones, we
probably at one point tried to minimize locked time, but that's not
productive here
## What was done?
Expand the locked scope to ensure we don't double process.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Ran full node for 5-10 minutes
## Breaking Changes
Should be none
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of Randomness Beacon Part 3.
Starting from v20 activation fork, members for quorums are sorted using
(if available) the best CL signature found in Coinbase.
If no CL signature is present yet, then the usual way is used (By using
Blockhash instead)
The actual new way to shuffle is already implemented in
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5366.
SPV clients also need to calculate members, but they only know block
headers.
Since Coinbase is in the actual block, then they lack the required
information to correctly calculate quorum members.
## What was done?
- Message `MNLISTIDFF` is enriched with a new field `quorumsCLSigs`.
This field holds the Chainlock Signature required for each set of
indexes corresponding to quorums in field `newQuorums`.
- Protocol version has been bumped to `70230`.
- Clients with protocol version greater or equal to `70230` will receive
the new field `quorumsCLSigs`.
- The same field is returned in `protx diff` RPC.
Note:
- Field `quorumsCLSigs` will populated only after v20 activation
- If for one or more quorums, no non-null CL sig was found in CbTx then
a null signature is returned in `quorumsCLSigs`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Functional test mininode's protocol version was bumped to `70230`.
- `feature_llmq_rotation.py` checks that `quorumsCLSigs` match in both
P2P and RPC messages.
## Breaking Changes
No
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It splits from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5150/ by
@PastaPastaPasta request.
## What was done?
See commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
b1f59d55d920d2b35269b474762f94fec87bfb16 RPC/Wallet: unloadwallet: Clarify docs/error when both the RPC endpoint and wallet_name parameter specify a wallet (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Just documentation clarifications from #20448
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK b1f59d55d920d2b35269b474762f94fec87bfb16
jonatack:
re-ACK b1f59d55d920d2b35269b474762f94fec87bfb16 per `git diff e8303a0 b1f59d5`
Tree-SHA512: ac068b0aa7ceed49496367fdd9425b59dbba18b56e89b26afc22a6c8ece51f0b92a169cacd55740b1cadab2b32f4f8e8700e609066ab7e59d3b53c7891da585e
c91b241b48d7f97b3e6b39d84ec780f2a3e3a0a7 Updated outdated help command for getblocktemplate (fixes#19625) (Jake Leventhal)
Pull request description:
**Summary of Changes**
* Removed coinbasetxn from the help outputs
* Added the missing name for transactions in the help outputs
* Added help outputs for longpollid and default_witness_commitment
* Added more clarity to capabilities, rules, and coinbaseaux
**Rationale**
The outputs from the help command for `getblocktemplate` are outdated and don't reflect the actual results from `getblocktemplate` (see #19625 for more details)
Fixes#19625.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK c91b241b48d7f97b3e6b39d84ec780f2a3e3a0a7
fjahr:
utACK c91b241b48d7f97b3e6b39d84ec780f2a3e3a0a7
Tree-SHA512: ee443af4bc3b2838dfd92e2705f344256ee785ae720e505fffea9b0ec5b75930e3b1374bae59b36d5da57c85c9aefe4d62504b028b893d6f2914dccf1e34c658
f110b7c722eb150816a26cab161ac2b8c0f58609 rpc: document returned error fields as optional if applicable (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The following RPCs return error fields (named `"error"` or `"errors"`) that are optional, but don't show up as optional in the help text yet:
* `analyzepsbt`
* `estimatesmartfee`
* `signrawtransactionwithkey`
* `signrawtransactionwithwallet`
The following RPC has the errors field already marked as optional, but doesn't match the usual format in the description (like `"if there are any"` in parantheses):
* `estimaterawfee`
This PR adds the missing optional flags and adapts the description strings. Inspired by a recent PR #19634 by justinmoon.
The instances were found via `git grep "RPCResult.*\"error"`. Note that there is one RPC so far where the return error is not optional (i.e. in case of no error, the field is included in the result, but is just empty), namely `bumpfee`.
ACKs for top commit:
adaminsky:
ACK `f110b7c`
laanwj:
ACK f110b7c722eb150816a26cab161ac2b8c0f58609, new documentation looks consistent with actual behavior
achow101:
ACK f110b7c722eb150816a26cab161ac2b8c0f58609
meshcollider:
utACK f110b7c722eb150816a26cab161ac2b8c0f58609
Tree-SHA512: 30c00f78a575b60e32b4536496af986d53a25f33e6ebbf553adcdcf825ad21a44f90267f3d1ea53326dac83bcfa9983fdb3dad6d3126e20f97f3c08ce286e188
f916847d2b56f2935c169e1b95b350a477c804cc rpc: Document getwalletinfo's unlocked_until field as optional (Justin Moon)
Pull request description:
The `getwalletinfo` RPC command's `unlocked_until` field is [optional in the code](f916847d2b/src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp (L2397)), but wasn't marked as optional in the docs.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK f916847d2b
achow101:
ACK f916847d2b56f2935c169e1b95b350a477c804cc
kristapsk:
ACK f916847d2b56f2935c169e1b95b350a477c804cc
Tree-SHA512: 8d82f0992fdaf8160000acf4a6e7e7f9ff289a90a983be2e078cf754f4b03601637e5f405afa66bd55adef9b347fa5eac5cc1822033b2ac08c587609cf3dfe0f
501e6ab4e778d8f4e95fdc807eeb8644df16203b doc: Add documentation for 'checklevel' argument in 'verifychain' RPC call (Calvin Kim)
Pull request description:
Rationale: When ```bitcoin-cli help verifychain``` is called, the user doesn't get any documentation about the ```checklevel``` argument, leading to issues like #18995.
This PR addresses that issue and adds documentation for what each level does, and that each level includes the checks of the previous levels.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 501e6ab4e778d8f4e95fdc807eeb8644df16203b `git diff 292ed3c 501e6ab` shows only change since last review is the verifychain RPCHelpMan edit; rebuild and retested manually anyway
MarcoFalke:
ACK 501e6ab4e778d8f4e95fdc807eeb8644df16203b 🚝
Tree-SHA512: 09239f79c25b5c3022b8eb1f76198ba681305d7e8775038e46becffe5f6a14c572e0c5d06b0723fe9d4a015ec42c9f7ca7b80a2a93df0b1b66f5a84a80eeeeb1
before 12%
<img width="1538" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/dashpay/dash/assets/6443210/fa5043fb-4e48-4728-bfaf-8636d5c20a8c">
after 10%
<img width="1544" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/dashpay/dash/assets/6443210/1df6aff4-2901-4af1-b421-3604f54df157">
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Redundant rehash
## What was done?
Avoid redundant rehash
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed 0-500000 on testnet
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`IsEnabled()` is checked inside anyway. Not starting the scheduler on
init results in no mixing on nodes with dynamically loaded wallets.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
During implementation #5469 (master node hard-fork) I noticed that some
parts of `CChainParams` are deprecated and can be removed.
## What was done?
1. removed methods from `CChainParams` that have no implementation at
all:
- UpdateSubsidyAndDiffParams
- UpdateLLMQChainLocks
- UpdateLLMQTestParams
- UpdateLLMQDevnetParams
2. removed method `BIP9CheckMasternodesUpgraded` from `CChainParams` and
a flag `check_mn_protocol` from `versionbitsinfo`.
(to follow-up dashpay/dash#2594)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Current implementation of BLS wrapper has an unclear interface related
to `checkMalleable` flag.
There are 2 methods Unserialize, that has both default arguments:
```
template
inline void Unserialize(Stream& s, const bool specificLegacyScheme, bool checkMalleable = true);
template
inline void Unserialize(Stream& s, bool checkMalleable = true);
```
Let's assume that I am calling `Unserialize(s, true)` - it's very
non-obvious which one will be called and not error prune at all.
It should be re-implemented, and there should not be default argument.
Pasta noticed that this flag can be useful from performance point of
view - let's have better new method such as `UnserializeNoMalleable` or
similar and use it when reindexing/etc. It should be specified explicit.
Reverting this change and adding new interface in future won't be
difficult task so far as changes are quite trivial.
## What was done?
Removed flag checkMalleable to simplify code because it's always true.
It splits from https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5443
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes - flag is always true.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
There are useless debug logs "CDEF" in `wallet_tests` unit tests.
## What was done?
removes it
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Many usages of `CBLS{Signature,PrivateKey,PublicKey}` assume using
global variable, even if can be specified explicitly.
Some of these usages have been deglobalized in this PR.
Some prior improvements and fixes are here:
[#5403](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5403)
## What was done?
- Refactored the uses of global variable of `bls_legacy_scheme` from
`SetHex`, `SetByteVector`, some rpc calls.
- Removed flag `checkMalleable` to simplify code because it's always
`true`.
- Removed dependency from `txmempool.h` on `bls.h` to speed up
compilation.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes assumed. But in theory behaviour of some RPC can be
more explicit and predictable.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Allow `upgradetohd` in IBD, better errors, no GUI lock-up
## What was done?
Pls see individual commits. Most of it is changes in whitespaces, might
want to use ?w=1 to review i.e.
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5455/files?w=1
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, try `upgradetohd` on testnet
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
`GetVersion` expects `is_basic_scheme_active`, not
`is_bls_legacy_scheme`
## What was done?
see commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
`make check`
## Breaking Changes
luckily only tests are affected
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
As reported by @kittywhiskers, GCC version 8 complains with `error:
'this' was not captured for this lambda function`
In order to support old GCC compilers, `this` should be captured
explicitly.
## What was done?
Captured `this` explicitly in affected functions: `GetValidMNsCount`,
`GetAllHPMNsCount`, `GetValidHPMNsCount` and `GetValidWeightedMNsCount`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` checks MNs count
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Allow generating 12, 18, 24 words mnemonics. Default to 12 words as it's
the most popular option/de-facto a standard now imo.
## What was done?
Add `-mnemonicbits` option, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, play with wallets on regtest
## Breaking Changes
n/a, old wallets should not be affected
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- make progress calculations sane
- show progress in GUI but only when you need 100+ new keys
- make it stop on shutdown request
- spam less in debug.log
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, run `keypoolrefill` with `1100` (add 100 keys, no gui popup)
and `10000` (100+ keys, progress bar) on testnet wallet, check logs,
verify it can be interrupted on shutdown
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
TL;DR: Should hopefully fix crashes like
https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/jobs/4522256293
In dashd we flush all callbacks first and then destroy `g_txindex`. In
tests we had to move `g_txindex` to `TestChainSetup` and its dtor is
executed first, so the order is broken. It also explains why this crash
happens so rare. In most cases tx index is up to date and you need some
kind of a hiccup for scheduler to lag behind a bit. Basically, between
`g_txindex.reset()` and `FlushBackgroundCallbacks`
`BaseIndex::BlockConnected` finally arrives. But it’s processed on a
(now) null instance hence a crash. If it’s earlier - it’s processed
normally, if it’s later - it’s flushed without execution, so there is a
tiny window to catch this crash.
## What was done?
Give tx index a bit of time to process everything
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests (but this crash is rare 🤷♂️ )
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It's super slow for wallets with 100.000s of txes to process lots of
notifications produced by rescan. Skip them all and simply refresh the
whole wallet instead. In my case (500k+ txes testnet wallet) gui update
after `rescanblockchain` time is down from _forever_ to ~30 seconds.
Same for `wipewallettxes true` (#5451 ). Gui update after
`wipewallettxes`/`wipewallettxes false` is instant (cause there are no
txes anymore) vs _forever_ before the patch.
## What was done?
refresh the whole wallet when notification queue is above 10K operations
actual changes (ignoring whitespaces):
d013cb4f5c
## How Has This Been Tested?
running on top of #5451 and #5452 , wiping and rescanning w/ and w/out
this patch.
## Breaking Changes
should be none
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It's super slow for wallets with 100.000s of keys and txes to reindex
and to rescan. Batching multiple operations fixes it. In my case (300K+
keys and 500k+ txes testnet wallet) `rescanblockchain` time is down from
6+ hours to ~10 minutes.
Re-calculating `block_time` over and over again inside of the loop in
`AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe` is wasteful, move it out.
## What was done?
batch what's possible, optimize `AddToWalletIfInvolvingMe`
## How Has This Been Tested?
running on top of #5451 , wiping and rescanning w/ and w/out this patch.
## Breaking Changes
should be none
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Given the hard fork that happened on testnet, there is now lots of the
transactions that were made on the fork that is no longer valid. Some
transactions could be relayed and mined again but some like coinjoin
mixing won't be relayed because of 0 fee and transactions spending
coinbases from the forked branch are no longer valid at all.
## What was done?
Introduce `wipewallettxes` RPC and `wipetxes` command for `dash-wallet`
tool to be able to get rid of some/all txes in the wallet.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, use rpc/command on testnet wallet
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Version field should always be the first field of a message for better
readibility.
## What was done?
- Introduced new protocol version `MNLISTDIFF_VERSION_ORDER` (`70229`).
- `nVersion` serialisation order is changed for clients with protocol
version greater than or equal to `70229`.
- For clients with protocol version >= `70225` and < `70229` the old
order is used: can be deprecated in the future.
- Increased functional test P2P mininode's protocol version to `70229`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_rotation.py` with new protocol version.
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Added the filter `hpmn` for both `masternodelist` and `protx list` rpcs.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Calling this RPC on Testnet.
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Disabled or non-enforced Chainlocks does not mean you can safely mine
non-locked txes, you could end up mining a block that is going to be
rejected by everyone else if a conflicting tx (missing on your node)
would be IS-locked. I can't find any reason why we have this besides "if
Chainlocks are disabled then smth is wrong so let them all be mined" but
we have spork_2 and spork_3 to control IS behaviour and we check them in
`IsTxSafeForMining` already, that would be a much more straightforward
way to deal with a potential issue.
Noticed this while reviewing #5150 and also while testing v19.2 during
recent testnet v19 re-fork.
## What was done?
Drop this check, adjust tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run tests locally
## Breaking Changes
Not quote breaking changes but a change in behaviour: with CLs disabled
it will now take 10 minutes for non-locked txes to be mined, same as
when CLs are enabled.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Mining blocks with a specific version can be useful on testnet and
devnets too
## What was done?
lift restrictions for `-blockversion`
## How Has This Been Tested?
it should just work :)
## Breaking Changes
n//a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
bump chainparams to some post failed-v19-fork block on mainnet and post
recent-v19-fork block on testnet
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Should fix
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5424#discussion_r1228654939 and
make `CSimplifiedMNListEntry`'s json a bit more human-friendly (imo) by
having `nVersion` and `nType` at the top of it.
Move `nVersion` up for `CSimplifiedMNListDiff` too.
NOTE: `nVersion` wasn't actually duplicated in rpc results, it was
simply assigned twice inside. still not nice though.
Thanks @thephez ! 👍
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
fix a couple of issues in help texts
develop:
```
protx register "collateralHash" collateralIndex "ipAndPort" "ownerAddress" "operatorPubKey_register" "votingAddress_register" "operatorReward" "payoutAddress_register" ( "feeSourceAddress" submit )
...
3. ipAndPort (string, required) IP and port in the form "IP:PORT".
Must be unique on the network. Can be set to 0, which will require a ProUpServTx afterwards.
...
5. operatorPubKey_register (string, required) The operator BLS public key. The BLS private key does not have to be known.
It has to match the BLS private key which is later used when operating the masternode.
6. votingAddress_register (string, required) The voting key address. The private key does not have to be known by your wallet.
It has to match the private key which is later used when voting on proposals.
If set to an empty string, ownerAddress will be used.
7. operatorReward (string, required) The fraction in %% to share with the operator. The value must be
between 0.00 and 100.00.
8. payoutAddress_register (string, required) The dash address to use for masternode reward payments.
...
```
```
protx update_service "proTxHash" "ipAndPort" "operatorKey" ( "operatorPayoutAddress" "feeSourceAddress" )
...
2. ipAndPort (string, required) IP and port in the form "IP:PORT".
Must be unique on the network. Can be set to 0, which will require a ProUpServTx afterwards.
...
```
fe95dfdd7a97ae5150d8e28ea908f619c6080008:
```
protx register "collateralHash" collateralIndex "ipAndPort" "ownerAddress" "operatorPubKey" "votingAddress" "operatorReward" "payoutAddress" ( "feeSourceAddress" submit )
...
3. ipAndPort (string, required) IP and port in the form "IP:PORT". Must be unique on the network.
Can be set to an empty string, which will require a ProUpServTx afterwards.
...
5. operatorPubKey (string, required) The operator BLS public key. The BLS private key does not have to be known.
It has to match the BLS private key which is later used when operating the masternode.
6. votingAddress (string, required) The voting key address. The private key does not have to be known by your wallet.
It has to match the private key which is later used when voting on proposals.
If set to an empty string, ownerAddress will be used.
7. operatorReward (string, required) The fraction in %% to share with the operator.
The value must be between 0 and 10000.
8. payoutAddress (string, required) The dash address to use for masternode reward payments.
...
```
```
protx update_service "proTxHash" "ipAndPort" "operatorKey" ( "operatorPayoutAddress" "feeSourceAddress" )
...
2. ipAndPort (string, required) IP and port in the form "IP:PORT". Must be unique on the network.
...
```
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run `dash-qt`, check `help <cmd>` response
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Removed collateral amount from help text for `protx register_fund_hpmn`
RPC.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Some conditions won't trigger when reorging exactly from the forkpoint
## What was done?
pls see individual commits, tl;dr: you can't get correct results with
`GetAncestor` cause the answer is in the future
## How Has This Been Tested?
reorg to 850000 and back on testnet
```
invalidateblock 0000003eddb94218e7a3f41b2ac6e26143f8a748b50cd26e86bdbbab9ebe50aa
reconsiderblock 0000003eddb94218e7a3f41b2ac6e26143f8a748b50cd26e86bdbbab9ebe50aa
```
this fails on develop and work with this patch
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Same as #5428 but with a lower block number this time. This should let
us simply reorg testnet with 18.2.2 at deeper blocks instead of bumping
v19 testnet activation params for 19.2.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Having these above v19 forkpoint (850100) would result in v19.2 nodes
forking at the wrong height (864000) when reindexing without
`--assumevalid=<0 or some pre-v19 block height>`
## What was done?
Go back to pre-v19 block (850000) in chainparams
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindex
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
