## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
#5597 follow-up
## What was done?
add missing filed description
## How Has This Been Tested?
`help getblockchaininfo`
## 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
- Using `actions/cache` with a local buildx cache without the "move
cache" workaround will result in constant growth in cache size:
https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#local-cache
## What was done?
- Docker natively supports the GHA Cache API, so we should use it for
faster and more efficient cache usage
- Actions were also bumped to current stable versions
## How Has This Been Tested?
Devs please test this by running a test Guix build from workflow
dispatch
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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
- [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)_
(over a 13 minute segment of reindex) boost time took about 9+9+9 =
27%!! of total cycles!!!
During the same time segment, GetTimeMicros() used roughly 0.2% of total
cycles! (even though it's used a lot more)
Over my entire roughly 40 minute profiling session, boost time appears
to use about 6% of cycles; still too much, while GetTimeMicros used
about 0.4%
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Now that v19 is buried we can enforce basic bls scheme usage in
governance and coinjoin and drop some extra code we used for backwards
compatibility.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, sync and mix 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
It makes more sense for DecreaseScores to be inside of the MNList itself
imo
## What was done?
Refactored as such
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed
I had originally expected some performance improvements due to the
removal of `GetMN` but in my benchmarking I didn't see any noticeable
perf changes. I do still think the removal of `GetMN` and using a
shared_ptr the whole time is better as it removes the chance of the
master node disappearing from the list (which would have previously
thrown, but is now impossible).
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Implementation EHF mechanism, part 4. Previous changes are:
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4577
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5505
- https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently MN_RR is activated automatically by soft-fork activation after
v20 is activated.
It is not flexible enough, because platform may not be released by that
time yet or in opposite it can be too long to wait.
Also, any signal of EHF requires manual actions from MN owners to sign
EHF signal - it is automated here.
## What was done?
New spork `SPORK_24_MN_RR_READY`; new EHF manager that sign EHF signals
semi-automatically without manual actions; and send transaction with EHF
signal when signal is signed to network.
Updated rpc `getblockchaininfo` to return information about of EHF
activated forks.
Fixed function `IsTxSafeForMining` in chainlock's handler to skip
transactions without inputs (empty `vin`).
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests. Some tests have been updated due to new way
of MN_RR activation: `feature_asset_locks.py`, `feature_mnehf.py`,
`feature_llmq_evo.py` and unit test `block_reward_reallocation_tests`.
## Breaking Changes
New way of MN_RR activation.
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Calculation of `platformReward` should ignore fees and rely only on
Block subsidy.
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
From now on, the following formula is applied:
```
blockReward = blockSubsidy + feeReward
masternodeReward = masternodeShare(blockSubsidy)
platformReward = platformShare(masternodeReward)
masternodeReward += masternodeShare(feeReward)
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
`plaftormReward` differs in networks where `mn_rr` is already active
## 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
- [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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, the `nSubsidyBase` calculation relies on difficulty. This
leads to variable Block Subsidity.
When Platform will be live, it would constantly require blocks
difficulty in order to calculate the `platformReward` (which relies on
Block Subsidy)
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Starting from v20 activation, `nSubsidyBase` will no longer rely on
difficulty and will be constant to 5.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Block rewards will differ.
## 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
Signature for withdrawal (asset unlock) transaction should be validated
against platform quorum (100_67) but not same as currently against EHF
quorum (400_85).
## What was done?
Updates type of quorum in chainparams for Asset Unlock (withdrawal)
transactions to same as platform's quorum.
It is first part of changes to fix devnet, testnet and mainnet. For
regnet is still used incorrect quorum due to non-trivial changes in
functional test `feature_assetlocks.py`; these changes would be provided
in next PR.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test.
## Breaking Changes
Yes, quorum for validation of Asset Unlock (withdrawal) transaction is
changed.
## 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
this change saw a ~38% performance improvement in header sync reindex
reproduce via `time ./src/qt/dash-qt --nowallet --testnet --reindex
--stopatheight=5`
On Develop this took average of 1:48 to finish, on this branch it took
1:07
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Slow header / block validation
## What was done?
Pass around cached block hash
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed testnet
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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)_
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Fixed a problem forgotten in #5588 in feature_asset_locks.py.
## What was done?
Avoid floating operations when calculating `coinbasevalue`
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since `mn_rr` is already active on Testnet, because of #5588, syncing
from develop is broken.
## What was done?
Temporary disabled changes of #5588 for Testnet.
This should be dropped when Testnet will be re-organised for Platform.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Syncing 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
- [ ] 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
Historical masternode data returned via rpcs like `protx listdiff` can
be broken because some collaterals might be spent already and
`GetUTXOCoin` wasn't able to get any info.
## What was done?
Use `GetTransaction` as a fallback.
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
avoid potential discrepancies in block reward calculations
## What was done?
use integers (int64_t) only when dealing with block rewards, no
float/double
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
might fork off on devnets that use previous version
## 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)_
ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e refactor: cast bool to int to silence compiler warning (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
This fixes a compiler warning:
```
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: warning: use of bitwise '&' with boolean operands [-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
return FillBlock(ancestor, ancestor_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block1, block1_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block2, block2_out, lock, active);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&&
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: warning: use of bitwise '&' with boolean operands [-Wbitwise-instead-of-logical]
return FillBlock(ancestor, ancestor_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block1, block1_out, lock, active) & FillBlock(block2, block2_out, lock, active);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&&
node/interfaces.cpp:544:16: note: cast one or both operands to int to silence this warning
2 warnings generated.
```
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e
theStack:
Concept and code-review ACK ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e
shaavan:
ACK ab22a71429f0f47b3c3582a303c07940aa59cd3e
Tree-SHA512: 84e5aeabc1514a7586ac7c78a8eff1d15a5967dced7b2485b266b6fd79a530e1b22d99ded0a5df39f7806d3c5fd6d9752f08a722cc3be17850a6242c4022ab03
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Follow-up changes for this PR:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5586/
## What was done?
Span has already "pointer + start + length", extra start/count variables
in function signatures are just duplicates.
## 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
The block reward calculation logic in `SetTarget` doesn't work on
superblocks.
## What was done?
Move `CreditPoolDiff` checks out of `ProcessSpecialTxsInBlock` to use
correct block reward.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## Breaking Changes
n/a, sb blocks should now be processed correctly, non-sb blocks
shouldn't be 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)_
