## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
## What was done?
As discussed with Platform team, threshold for `llmq_test_platform`
needed to be 67%. Therefore, the size went from 4 members to 3 (while
keeping threshold to 2)
## 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
- [x] 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
## What was done?
- `masternode status` now returns the type as well
- `masternode count` now returns in addition total and total enabled MNs
per type.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Added functional tests
## 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
- [x] 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
## What was done?
Implementation of 4k collateral HPMN.
## 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
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] 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: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+pastapastapasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <1935069+Udjinm6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Konstantin Akimov <545784+knst@users.noreply.github.com>
fa499b5f027f77c0bf13699852c8c06f78e27bef rpc: bugfix: Properly use iswitness in converttopsbt (MarcoFalke)
fa5c5cd141f0265a5693234690ac757b811157d8 rpc: Switch touched RPCs to IsValidNumArgs (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When a serialized transaction has inputs, there is no risk in only trying to deserialize it with witness allowed. (This is how all transactions from p2p are deserialized.) In fact, it would avoid a common issue where a transaction with inputs can be deserialized in two ways:
* Fixes#12989
* Fixes#15872
* Fixes#15701
* Fixes#13738
* ...
When a serialized transaction has no inputs, there is no risk in only trying to deserialze it with witness disallowed. (A transaction without inputs can't have corresponding witness data)
ACKs for commit fa499b:
meshcollider:
utACK fa499b5f02
ryanofsky:
utACK fa499b5f027f77c0bf13699852c8c06f78e27bef. Changes since last review: consolidating commits and making iswitness documentation the same across methods.
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK fa499b5f027f77c0bf13699852c8c06f78e27bef
Tree-SHA512: a64423a3131f3f0222a40da557c8b590c9ff01b45bcd40796f77a1a64ae74c6680a6be9d01ece95c492dfbcc7e2810409d2c2b336c2894af00bb213972fc85c6
7813eb1db1 [qa] Overhaul p2p_compactblocks.py (Suhas Daftuar)
+ extra fixes for pull request #1966 (compact blocks)
Pull request description:
Remove tests of:
- compactblock behavior in a simulated pre-segwit version of bitcoind
This should have been removed a long time ago, as it is not generally
necessary for us to test the behavior of old nodes (except perhaps if we
want to test that upgrading from an old node to a new one behaves properly)
- compactblock behavior during segwit upgrade (ie verifying that network
behavior before and after activation was as expected)
This is unnecessary to test now that segwit activation has already happened.
ACKs for commit 7813eb:
jnewbery:
utACK 7813eb1db132c023902ad945995cc32a325893ca
Tree-SHA512: cadf035e6f822fa8cff974ed0c2e88a1d4d7da559b341e574e785fd3d309cc2c98c63bc05479265dc00550ae7b77fc3cbe815caae7f68bcff13a04367dca9b52
b651ef7e1c submitheader: more directly test missing prev block header (Gregory Sanders)
1e7f741745 remove some magic mining constants in functional tests (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
The fewer magic numbers the better.
Also more directly tested a `submitheader` case of bad previous blockhash.
Tree-SHA512: 52b01a6aa199fa909eea4e9e84409a901933e545724e33149cc4132c82168199fd678809b6d94d95c9ff6ad02238a9552363620d13b8beaa5d4b67ade9ef425c
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
it was picking the wrong DMN as a payee...
## What was done?
see code and notes
## How Has This Been Tested?
run tests
## 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
- [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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
deaa6dd144f5650b385658a0c4f9a014aff8dde2 psbt: check output index is within bounds before accessing (Andrew Chow)
f1ef7f0aa46338f4cd8de79696027a1bf868f359 Don't calculate tx fees for PSBTs with invalid money values (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Fixes#17149
Two classes of issues were found by the psbt fuzzer: values out of range and causing overflows, and prevout indexes being out of range. This PR fixes both.
When accessing a specific output using the index given in the tx, check that it is actually a possible output before trying to access the output.
When summing and checking amounts for `decodepsbt` and `analyzepsbt`, make sure that the values are actually valid money values.. Otherwise, stop summing and don't show the fee. For `analyzepsbt`, return that the next role is the Creator since the Creator needs to remake the transaction to be valid.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK deaa6dd144f5650b385658a0c4f9a014aff8dde2 -- only change since last ACK was the addition of tests
gwillen:
tested ACK deaa6dd, would also like to see this merged!
Tree-SHA512: 06c36720bbb5a7ab1c29f7d15878bf9f0d3e5760c06bff479d412e1bf07bb3e0e9ab6cca820a4bfedaab71bfd7af813807e87cbcdf0af25cc3f66a53a06dbcfd
773d4572a4864ab7b6380858d07d9579ff6dd9a2 Mark PSBTs spending unspendable outputs as invalid in analysis (Andrew Chow)
638e40cb6080800c7b0a7f4028f63326acbe4700 Have a PSBTAnalysis state that indicates invalid PSBT (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
When analyzing an unspendable PSBT, report that it is unspendable and exit analysis early.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK 773d457
instagibbs:
After some thought ACK 773d4572a4
Tree-SHA512: 99b0cb2fa1ea37593fc65a20effe881639d69ddeeecf5197bc87bc7f2220cbeb40f1d429d517e4d27f2e9fb563a00cd845d2b4b1ce05246a75a6cb56fb9b0ba5
91cc18f602fe2ff7fe47335a8e1e7734895a19d9 [docs] Add release notes for PR 15427 (John Newbery)
3b11420b3c91f731b03805a39e48ee32e54484a2 [RPC] add new utxoupdatepsbt arguments to the CRPCCommand and CPRCConvertParam tables (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
The new `descriptors` argument was not added to the CRPCCommand and CPRCCvertParam tables, meaning that it couldn't be used with bitcoin-cli or named arguments.
Before this PR:
```
> bitcoin-cli utxoupdatepsbt 'cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' "[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
error code: -3
error message:
Expected type array, got string
> bitcoin-cli --named utxoupdatepsbt psbt='cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' descriptors="[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
error code: -8
error message:
Unknown named parameter descriptors
```
After this PR:
```
bitcoin-cli utxoupdatepsbt 'cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' "[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==
bitcoin-cli --named utxoupdatepsbt psbt='cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==' descriptors="[{\"desc\":\"sh(wpkh([bd50871a/0h/0h/0h]03895c66337b38699bfafff1084ad35bc347fac4f4e5e5fe5eb7dd81155280db53))\"}]"
cHNidP8BAFMCAAAAAYCdwVRx2X3o4KHx5tAMsN1ddp51MbfWsietjfMbl5HtAAAAAAD/////AQDh9QUAAAAAF6kUW+rtEOi4nk9rpw2F5XZl1dd8ehGHAAAAAAAAAA==
```
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
ACK 91cc18f.
fanquake:
re-ACK 91cc18f602fe2ff7fe47335a8e1e7734895a19d9
Tree-SHA512: 279b2339a5cac17e363002e4ab743e251d6757c904c89f1970575bdce18d4f63d5e13507e171bf2bdc1bf6dd457db345a4b11b15d4ff71b96c2fedc4ffe52b23
58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a Ignoring (but warn) on duplicate -wallet parameters (Jonas Schnelli)
Pull request description:
I expect that there are many users with load on startup wallet definitions in `bitcoin.conf` or via startup CLI argument.
With the new `settings.json` r/w configuration file, users unloading and loading a wallet through the GUI or via the RPC calls might end up with a duplicate `-wallet` entry (one that still remains in bitcoin.conf or CLI) plus the new duplication in `settings.json` due to the unload/load.
Steps to reproduce
* create wallet (if via RPC set `load_on_startup` or unloadwallet/loadwallet then set `load_on_startup`).
* stop bitcoin
* start bitcoind again with same `--wallet=mywallet`
I guess it is acceptable to skip duplicates.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
Tested ACK 58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 58cfbc38e040925b51cb8d35d23b50e9cf06fb2a. Changes since previous review: rebased, tweaked warning message, squashed/fixed test
Tree-SHA512: f94e5a999bdd7dc291f0bc142911b0a8033929350d6f6a35b58c4a06a3c8f83147be0f0c402d4e946dedbbcc85b7e023b672c731b6d7a8984d4780017c961cfb
fa5f46600fb98f1b35346bedc1a66c9019d01114 test: Fix rpc_net intermittent issue (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Without the sync, the nodes might generate blocks at the same height and thus never be able to sync
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa5f46600fb98f1b35346bedc1a66c9019d01114: patch looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 21255795c2121c71fc620beb766855e57c7af94a668331d1b625665e22eb4b485a2b5c3ad2bb9a7042744f3c3e49c71251bcec41ba25bca03fd54aae32968a3a
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
autoresending was really slow
## What was done?
reduced the time range to from 1-3 hours from now
## How Has This Been Tested?
hasn't
## Breaking Changes
Shouldn't be
## 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
- [ ] 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: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
fa80b4788bbe3ef00c5d767c0d89ba9809d8707c test: Remove global wait_until from p2p_getdata (MarcoFalke)
999922baed3a80b581ce46daa01c4cbca4fcbfd8 test: Default mininode.wait_until timeout to 60s (MarcoFalke)
fab47375fe0bdec1e557e087fdb0707c4dfa7cc2 test: pep-8 p2p_getdata.py (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Using the global wait_until makes it impossible to adjust the timeout based on the hardware the test is running on.
Fix that by using the mininode member function.
So for example, `./test/functional/p2p_getdata.py --timeout-factor=0.04` gives a timeout of 2.4 seconds.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa80b4788bbe3ef00c5d767c0d89ba9809d8707c
Tree-SHA512: ebb1b7860a64451de2b8ee9a0966faddb13b84af711f6744e8260d7c9bc0b382e8fb259897df5212190821e850ed30d4d5c2d7af45a97f207fd4511b06b6674a
9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7 [docs] Improve commenting in ProcessGetData() (John Newbery)
2f032556e08a04807c71eb02104ca9589eaadf1b [test] test that an invalid GETDATA doesn't prevent processing of future messages (Amiti Uttarwar)
e257cf71c851e25e1a533bf1d4296f6b55c81332 [net processing] ignore unknown INV types in GETDATA messages (Amiti Uttarwar)
047ceac142246b5d51056a51dbf4645b31802be4 [net processing] ignore tx GETDATA from blocks-only peers (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
Currently we'll stall peers that send us an unknown INV type in a GETDATA message. Be a bit more friendly and just drop the invalid request.
Ditto for blocks-relay-only peers that send us a GETDATA for a transaction.
There's a test for the first part. The second is difficult to test in the functional test framework since we aren't able to make blocks-relay-only connections.
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK 9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7
brakmic:
ACK 9847e205bf
luke-jr:
utACK 9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7
naumenkogs:
utACK 9847e20
ajtowns:
utACK 9847e205bf7edcac4c30ce4b6d62f482aa7bc1b7
Tree-SHA512: 6007f2fd839ffe737727f6fb8e8f083b2d9e05a510748f1d40b8f9be8fdf7b5419a36d8f1039923eec1ba2983e8f6f0436ec5fc196d9f6dcb0657f2ff8ff8e4c
09502452bbbe21bb974f1de8cf53196373921ab9 IsUsedDestination should count any known single-key address (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
This plugs the privacy leak detailed at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17605, at least for the single-key case.
ACKs for top commit:
meshcollider:
Code Review ACK 09502452bbbe21bb974f1de8cf53196373921ab9
Tree-SHA512: e1d68281675f05072b3087171cba1df9416a69c9ccf70c72e8555e55eadda2d0fd339e5a894e3a3438ff94b9e3827fb19b8b701faade70c08756b19ff157ee0c
fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f doc: Use precise permission flags where possible (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Instead of mentioning the all-encompassing `-whitelist*` settings, change the docs to mention the exact permission flag that will influence the behaviour.
This is needed because in the future, the too-broad `-whitelist*` settings (they either include *all* permission flags or apply to *all* peers) might be deprecated to require the permission flags to be enumerated.
Alternatively, in the future there could be an RPC to set the net permission flags on an existing connection, in which case the `-whitelist*` terminology is of no help.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
reACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
fjahr:
Code review ACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
jonatack:
ACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
Tree-SHA512: c7dea3e577d90103bb2b0ffab7b7c8640b388932a3a880f69e2b70747fc9213dc1f437085671fd54c902ec2a578458b8a2fae6dbe076642fb88efbf9fa9e679c
8098dea06944f9de8b285f44958eb98761f133ee test: Add mempool_updatefromblock.py (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a new test for mempool update of transaction descendants/ancestors information (count, size) when transactions have been re-added from a disconnected block to the mempool.
It could be helpful for working on PRs like #17925, #18191.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
ACK 8098dea
Tree-SHA512: 7e808fa8df8d7d7a7dbdc3f79361049b49c7bce9b58fd5539b28c9636bedac747695537e500d7ed68dc8bdb80167ad3f1c01086f7551691405d2ba2e38ef1d06
fa262712ca0981cb0ee68cd3dd99a214a20dcbf1 test: Check submitblock return values (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Add `assert_equal` in some tests to check the `submitblock` return value
ACKs for top commit:
robot-visions:
ACK fa262712ca0981cb0ee68cd3dd99a214a20dcbf1
Tree-SHA512: 25d9effe82a4f6852184b9ac848f96336cc2cafb0bb07edb2792f00cd363f0759575bc9c164dd62f64425d3754028b4acd0675600c07d51277aa80bf66c6f960
9f5608c2893f89cd56c7c548b748996199e0da1d test: check for matching object hashes in wait_for_getdata (Danny Lee)
Pull request description:
Previously, `wait_for_getdata` only looked for the presence of a recent `"getdata"` message. Additionally checking the object hashes inside the message should make tests involving `wait_for_getdata` more robust.
`p2p_sendheaders.py` already overrides `wait_for_getdata` do this check; we can use the same approach consistently across all tests that call `wait_for_getdata`.
This PR is progress towards #18614 , but closing that issue would also involve some additional changes to `wait_for_getheaders`.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK 9f5608c2893f89cd56c7c548b748996199e0da1d 🍻
Tree-SHA512: 8e7f95881c19631db014d4bb2399fea0d14686a32542f6ca3b60809744b0d684eac4e4c107c87143991f3cd0c2d4ab09d0c17486239768a9b40bee25f2e4d54a
fabfcad8764bb8f807b0ac5f3482b414278a4525 test: Bump timeout in wallet_import_rescan (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Avoid timeouts when starting the node, also make error message more verbose
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fabfcad8764bb8f807b0ac5f3482b414278a4525 -- patch looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 8fd60a05380349f521d0e814d2f268702dfbe57c7567a4f6e94435498dfdd32909179d75fded44757ecb1a93a4045842bc6d00bfd6cd18ba751513461359c7b0
fa320975411af4f0e41771d89958a77fd7a2284b test: Create cached blocks not in the future (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This avoids test failures when tests assume blocks are not from the future, like in wallet_dump: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6607130193035264?command=ci#L3306
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK fa320975411af4f0e41771d89958a77fd7a2284b
Tree-SHA512: 60b6882e0e1df8c5d67f034533407a45d3685983891b67ff4631072bfd0a93a325c7ca18758d7a2df252e4fcdb7c87321cb1e84458b22782e57e719eec634c22
9cdddae3b4efee071d71ba3b6629a53017332f6f test: add rpc_signrawtransaction logging (Jon Atack)
4d6cde38cefa61209d307ed8015bdd40f2695668 test: refactor rpc_signrawtransaction witness script tests (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
As a follow-up to #18484, the new tests are good but bury the one non-duplicate line in each test that sets the witness script, and there is no logging in the testfile. This PR makes it easy to see what is unique to each of the new tests and adds logging.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
ACK 9cdddae3b4🥚🐰
Tree-SHA512: 7b1ca303326658afb90b7635abc9fe8bb65f0be004124d4dcf38702bb6f38bc06ce33c0642be4ad5d511453d003cdefeea691e66e3b963a4feb66f6237a3c241
555567ace9baae3c80e118eeca434d5c424a3487 test: Extend wallet_dump test to cover comments (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 555567ace9baae3c80e118eeca434d5c424a3487. Nice new checks in this test. I confirmed this catches the missing FormatISO8601DateTime call you discovered in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17954#discussion_r406891999
Tree-SHA512: 71aa23dd039f3bcdee642b01151edd1a0d44f48cedd070f5858148c8cb8abd6f5edfd212daeba38e35c843da5ea6c799e5a952105fdecedac355a5a843c05a84
6659810e2f38994813aa9d7644d570ae0152fa2c test: use named args for sendrawtransaction calls (Jon Atack)
5c1cd78b7e582660a78d9d9dec673967a6b78936 doc: improve rawtransaction code/test docs (Jon Atack)
acc14c50932c7353f94d3d4367d05021606e0ca9 test: fix incorrect value in rpc_rawtransaction.py (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Follow-up to PR #16521.
- Fix incorrect value in rpc_rawtransaction test as per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16521/files#r325842308
- Improve the code docs
- Use named arguments as per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16521/files#r310715127
Happy to squash or keep only the first commit if the others are too fixup-y.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 6659810e2f38994813aa9d7644d570ae0152fa2c
Tree-SHA512: bf5258f23802ab3ba3defb8791097e08e63f3e2af21023f832cd270dc88d1fa04349e921d69f9f5fedac5dce5cd3c1cc46b48febbede4bc18dccb8be994565b2
2dfd6834ef8737e16e4b96df0c459f30a0721d6c test: Add test for default maxfeerate in sendrawtransaction (Joonmo Yang)
261843e4bef96ab296a9775819a99bfa60cad743 wallet/rpc: Use the default maxfeerate value as BTC/kB (Joonmo Yang)
Pull request description:
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16382
This patch tries to treat `maxfeerate` in sendrawtransaction/testmempoolaccept RPC as a rate(BTC/kB) instead of an absolute value(BTC).
The included test case checks if the new behavior works correctly, by using the transaction with an absolute fee of ~0.02BTC, where the fee rate is ~0.2BTC/kB.
This test should be failing if the default `maxfeerate` is 0.1BTC, but pass if the default value is 0.1BTC/kB
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 2dfd6834ef8737e16e4b96df0c459f30a0721d6c (ACKs by Sjors and MarcoFalke above for trivially different code)
Tree-SHA512: a1795bffe8a182acef8844797955db1f60bb0c0ded97148f3572dc265234d5219271a3a7aa0b6418a43f73b2b2720ef7412ba169c99bb1cdcac52051f537d6af
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This should speed up test `feature_llmq_data_recovery.py` for 30% from
500+ seconds to ~350 seconds (running locally) and all other tests that
uses any quorum, such as `feature_llmq_simplepose.py`
Time of CI running is also decreased noticeable 168min -> 131min
21 jobs for
[pr-5091/knst/dash/functional-tests-delays](https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/commits/pr-5091/knst/dash/functional-tests-delays)
in 131 minutes and 20 seconds (queued for 4 seconds)
vs some other pull request:
23 jobs for
[pr-5100/UdjinM6/dash/fix_GetStateFor_perf](https://gitlab.com/dashpay/dash/-/commits/pr-5100/UdjinM6/dash/fix_GetStateFor_perf)
in 195 minutes and 33 seconds (queued for 28 minutes and 13 seconds)
## What was done?
decreased delays in functional tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
I run several times locally and run CI/CD to see that it doesn't fail
## Breaking Changes
no 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
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
