## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Addressed issues and comments from [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1317886678)
and [PR
comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5469#discussion_r1338704082)
`Params()` should be const; global variable `CMNHFManager` is a better
out-come.
## What was done?
The helpers and direct calls of `UpdateMNParams` for each block to
update non-constant member in `Params()` is not needed anymore. Instead
`CMNHFManager` takes cares about status of Signals for each block,
update them dynamically and save in evo db.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
Changed rpc `getblockchaininfo`.
the field `ehf` changed meaning: it's now only a flag -1/0; but it is
introduced a new field `ehf_height` now that a height.
## 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
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: PastaPastaPasta <6443210+PastaPastaPasta@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: thephez <thephez@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, on functional tests v20 activates at height 1440 which is
later than needed.
## What was done?
Reduced the window size of v20 from 480 to 400 which activates v20 at
1200.
Adjusted tests to this change.
Note regarding the window analysis for MN payments in
`feature_llmq_evo.py` (reduced from 256 to 48 blocks):
48 window is enough to analyse 4 MNs and 5 EvoNodes (Weighted count=24)
On my machine using develop:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 145.45s user 30.00s system 68% cpu
4:16.93 total`
With this PR:
`python3 feature_llmq_rotation.py 119.26s user 24.61s system 62% cpu
3:50.89 total`
## How Has This Been Tested?
all tests
## 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
- [ ] 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 bug was introduced in the original PR #5026 and refactored later
(which is good actually cause we shouldn't mix refactoring and
bug-fixing :) )
## What was done?
fix conditions, add tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
`feature_asset_locks.py`
## 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)_
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
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
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)_
## 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)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20
## What was done?
Once Masternode Reward Location Reallocation activates:
- Treasury is bumped to 20% of block subsidy.
- Block reward shares are immediately set to 75% for MN and 25% miners.
(Previous reallocation periods are dropped)
MN reward share should be 75% of block reward in order to represent 60%
of the block subsidy. (according to the proposal)
- `governancebudget` is returned from `getgovernanceinfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`block_reward_reallocation_tests`
## 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
- [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>
Move funds from the coinbase, into the Asset Lock Pool. This is to incentivize MNs to upgrade to platform, because only MNs running platform will get these migrated rewards
## What was done?
- remove dependency of Asset Lock txes on CCreditPool
- new case for functional tests of Asset Locks - more than one output
for Asset Lock tx.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
## Breaking Changes
Slightly changes behaviour of TxMempool. Tx can be accepted in mempool
even if Asset Unlock transaction with same index is already mined. But
final consensus rules are same.
## 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
By design we can have more and more and more gaps in indexes list so far as
we can not re-sign expired transaction of asset-unlock. CRangesList is protected from this situation
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Bad naming is noticed in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5026 by
thephez
## What was done?
Renamed `assetLockedAmount` in CbTx to `creditPoolBalance`
Renamed also some local variables and functions to make it matched also.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests - succeed
Called python's rpc binding `node.getblock(block_hash)['cbTx']`:
Got this result:
```
{'version': 3, 'height': 1556, 'merkleRootMNList': '978b2b4d1b884de62799b9eaee75c7812fea59f98f80d5ff9c963b0f0f195e14', 'merkleRootQuorums': 'bc7a34eb114f4e4bf38a11080b5d8ac41bdb36dd41e17467bae23c94ba06b013', 'bestCLHeightDiff': 0, 'bestCLSignature': '000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000', 'creditPoolBalance': Decimal('7.00141421')}
```
## Breaking Changes
Renamed `assetLockedAmount` in CbTx to `creditPoolBalance`. @shumkov be
informed
## 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
## 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>
