## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
reindexed
## 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
Noticed a couple of things while I was trying to figure out if an
[issue](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5627#discussion_r1367153099)
@knst mentioned in #5627 could actually exist:
1. `GetPaymentsLimit()` won't work correctly with historical blocks rn.
We don't use it that way internally but it could be done via rpc and it
should provide correct results.
2. superblock params on regtest are too small to test them properly
3. because of (2) and a huge v20 activation window (comparing to sb
params) `feature_governance.py` doesn't test v20 switching states.
There's also no "sb on v20 activation block" test.
~NOTE: based on #5639 atm~
## What was done?
fix it, pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run 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 _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This reverts #5636 and introduces 2 similar cmd-line/config params which
are made specifically for regtest. Turned out Platform guys actually
still need smth like that for local testing #5259.
## What was done?
pls see individual commits
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests but we don't really have(/need?) tests for this.
## 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)_
cc @shumkov
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
there is no reason for devnet-only params to exist on regtest
## What was done?
remove them
## 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
To make configuring devnets more error-prune and config file shorter
## What was done?
Updated default LLMQ parameters on devnet from 50_60, 60_75, 100_67 to
`LLMQ_DEVNET` and `LLMQ_DEVNET_PLATFORM`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
not tested yet; would be tested on devnets later with next
devnet/release
## Breaking Changes
n/a for non-dev-nets; for dev-net other default quorum is used.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
By default consensus for devnet if 50_60 that is way too much:
```
consensus.llmqTypeMnhf = Consensus::LLMQType::LLMQ_50_60;
```
So, `quorum list` on devnet-ouzo is empty:
```
{
"llmq_50_60": [
],
```
## What was done?
Adds new -llmqmnhf param for devnet to change quorum params dynamically.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<not 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
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
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
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Set start time of signaling for v29 and mn_rr for Testnet at Friday,
September 1, 2023 0:00:00
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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
Since #5525, MNs during the maturity window, will propose new triggers.
In `CGovernanceManager::CreateSuperblockCandidate`, SuperBlock creation
is skipped when the bellow check is true:
`if (nHeight % Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle <
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockCycle -
Params().GetConsensus().nSuperblockMaturityWindow) return std::nullopt;
`
Hence, the value of `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` must be less than
`nSuperblockCycle` and greater than 0.
## What was done?
Changed `nSuperblockMaturityWindow` for devnet and Testnet chain
parameters to the following values:
`nSuperblockCycle` = 24
`nSuperblockMaturityWindow` = 8
## 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)_
fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef test: Move boost/stdlib includes last (MarcoFalke)
fa488f131fd4f5bab0d01376c5a5013306f1abcd scripted-diff: Bump copyright headers (MarcoFalke)
fac5c373006a9e4bcbb56843bb85f1aca4d87599 scripted-diff: Sort test includes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When writing tests, often includes need to be added or removed. Currently the list of includes is not sorted, so developers that write tests and have `clang-format` installed will either have an unrelated change (sorting) included in their commit or they will have to manually undo the sort.
This pull preempts both issues by just sorting all includes in one commit.
Please be aware that this is **NOT** a change to policy to enforce clang-format or any other developer guideline or process. Developers are free to use whatever tool they want, see also #18651.
Edit: Also includes a commit to bump the copyright headers, so that the touched files don't need to be touched again for that.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef
jonatack:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa, light review and sanity checks with gcc build and clang fuzz build
Tree-SHA512: 130a8d073a379ba556b1e64104d37c46b671425c0aef0ed725fd60156a95e8dc83fb6f0b5330b2f8152cf5daaf3983b4aca5e75812598f2626c39fd12b88b180
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of issue https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/43
## What was done?
Masternode will try to create, sign and submit a Superblock (GovTrigger)
during the `nSuperblockMaturityWindow`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1 [doc] correct comment about ATMPW (glozow)
8fa74aeb5b96419c7d40b40f8e1e1269509278e2 [doc] correct comment in chainparams (glozow)
2f8272c2a4b6fa84c04dfeb4d751bb218f2d4c78 [doc] GetBestBlock() doesn't do nothing (gzhao408)
Pull request description:
Came across a few misleading comments, wanted to fix them
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
ACK 4eca20d6f7
MarcoFalke:
ACK 4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1
laanwj:
Code review ACK 4eca20d6f7d850492d331d89d1cdd77abb3c70c1
Tree-SHA512: 5bef1f1e7703f304128cf0eb8945e139e031580c99062bbbe15bf4db8443c2ba5a8c65844833132e6646c8980c678fc1d2ab0c63e17105585d583570ee350fd0
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Since v19, Evo nodes are paid 4x blocks in a row.
This needs to be reverted when MN Reward Reallocation activates.
## What was done?
Starting from MN Reward Reallocation activation, Evo nodes are paid one
block in a row (like regular masternodes).
In addition, `nConsecutivePayments` isn't incremented anymore for Evo
nodes.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_llmq_hpmn.py` with MN Reward Reallocation activation.
## Breaking Changes
no
## 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)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
## 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
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)_
## 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
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
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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Mainnet chain has stalled. The root issue does not appear trivial to
resolve, as such the most optimal path is likely to delay the v19 hard
fork
## What was done?
Delayed HF
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
This will hard fork mainnet
## 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
This changes are follow up for backport bitcoin/bitcoin#16060
## What was done?
Buried all hardened dash deployments
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
Run dash with option `-reindex` for both mainnet/testnet - both succeed.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, it should be fully compatible.
## 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
We had forgotten to harden dip20 and dip24 activation
## What was done?
Hardened dip20 and dip24 activation
## How Has This Been Tested?
Hasn't yet; should do an assumevalid=0 reindex
## Breaking Changes
Hopefully 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <knstqq@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 [docs] Add release notes for burying bip 9 soft fork deployments (John Newbery)
8319e738f9f118025b332e4fa804d4c31e4113f4 [tests] Add coverage for the content of getblockchaininfo.softforks (James O'Beirne)
0328dcdcfcb56dc8918697716d7686be048ad0b3 [Consensus] Bury segwit deployment (John Newbery)
1c93b9b31c2ab7358f9d55f52dd46340397c906d [Consensus] Bury CSV deployment height (John Newbery)
3862e473f0cb71a762c0306b171b591341d58142 [rpc] Tidy up reporting of buried and ongoing softforks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
This hardcodes CSV and segwit activation heights, similar to the BIP 90 buried deployments for BIPs 34, 65 and 66.
CSV and segwit have been active for over 18 months. Hardcoding the activation height is a code simplification, makes it easier to understand segwit activation status, and reduces technical debt.
This was originally attempted by jl2012 in #11398 and again by me in #12360.
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 ; checked diff to previous acked commit, checked tests still work
ariard:
ACK e78aaf4, check diff, run the tests again and successfully activated csv/segwit heights on mainnet as expected.
MarcoFalke:
ACK e78aaf41f43d0e2ad78fa6d8dad61032c8ef73d0 (still didn't check if the mainnet block heights are correct, but the code looks good now)
Tree-SHA512: 7e951829106e21a81725f7d3e236eddbb59349189740907bb47e33f5dbf95c43753ac1231f47ae7bee85c8c81b2146afcdfdc11deb1503947f23093a9c399912
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Increased v20 deployment window size in order to delay v20 activation.
Only for regtest
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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
## What was done?
Added v20 BIP9 style fork structure along with utility functions.
Since several features coming depending on that fork status, we needed
to group them into one
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/5294
## What was done?
Bumped defaultAssumeValid, nMinimumChainWork, chainTxData,
checkPointsData
## How Has This Been Tested?
Called rpcs `getblockhash N`, `getblock HASH`, `getchaintxstats 17280
HASH`
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
Mainnet activation start time is set to: `Tuesday, April 25, 2023
0:00:00`,
and timeout to: `Thursday, April 25, 2024 0:00:00`
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Delayed activation to reexperience rc.6
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This allows us to have a bit more granular control over GetLLMQ results,
removes code duplication and also optimises things a tiny bit by
replacing "HasLLMQ + GetLLMQParams" calls with simply "GetLLMQParams".
## What was done?
Use `optional` in `GetLLMQ`, drop `HasLLMQ`.
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests, reindex on testnet/mainnet
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Block 847000 hf should happen somewhere around March 4th. We need mining
nodes to be upgraded to follow that chain and mine correct blocks.
However we don't want v19 to be activated shortly after (~300 blocks),
we want to give it a little bit of time to let (new) platform quorums
form and make sure everything is ok. With this patch we should have ~2
days (instead of half of a day).
## What was done?
bumped v19 activation start time to March 6th
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
yes :)
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
- Added new LLMQ type `llmq_25_67`
- The above LLMQ is added only for Testnet and it is activated with v19
fork.
## 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
