Moves the call Initialize() from init.cpp to CreateWithArguments() and handles the
return value. Moves the call Shutdown() from init.cpp to destructor.
Changes Initialize() and Shutdown() to protected members.
Revert "Revert "Add rules--presently disabled--for using GetMedianTimePast as endpoint for lock-time calculations""
This reverts commit 40cd32e835.
After careful analysis it was determined that the change was, in fact, safe and several people were suffering
momentary confusion about locktime semantics.
When processing a new transaction, in addition to spending the Coins of its txin's it creates a new Coins for its outputs. The existing ModifyCoins function will first make sure this Coins does not already exist. It can not exist due to BIP 30, but because of that the lookup can't be cached and always has to go to the database. Since we are creating the coins to match the new tx anyway, there is no point in checking if they exist first anyway. However this should not be used for coinbase tx's in order to preserve the historical behavior of overwriting the two existing duplicate tx pairs.
This reverts commit 9d55050773.
As noted by Luke-Jr, under some conditions this will accept transactions which are invalid by the network
rules. This happens when the current block time is head of the median time past and a transaction's
locktime is in the middle.
This could be addressed by changing the rule to MAX(this_block_time, MTP+offset) but this solution and
the particular offset used deserve some consideration.
* Introduce new constant MIN_CHANGE and use it instead of the
hardcoded "CENT"
* Add test case for MIN_CHANGE
* Introduce new constant for -mintxfee default:
DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_MINFEE = 1000
Reduce the default limits on maximum number of transactions and the cumulative size of those transactions in both ancestor and descendant packages to 25 txs and 101kb total size.
Update the unittest that is meant to catch a transaction that is invalid
because it has a null input. The old test failed not because of that
but because it was considered a coinbase with too large script. This is
already checked with a different test, though.
The new test is *not* a coinbase since it has two inputs, but one of
them is null. This really checks the corresponding code path in
CheckTransaction.
* -maxuploadtarget can be set in MiB
* if <limit> - ( time-left-in-24h-cycle / 600 * MAX_BLOCK_SIZE ) has reach, stop serve blocks older than one week and filtered blocks
* no action if limit has reached, no guarantee that the target will not be surpassed
* add outbound limit informations to rpc getnettotals
Until now there were quite a few leftovers, and only the coverage
related files in `src/` were cleaned, while the ones in the other dirs
remained. `qa/tmp/` is related to the BitcoinJ tests, and `cache/` is
related to RPC tests.
Transactions are not allowed in the memory pool or selected for inclusion in a block until their lock times exceed chainActive.Tip()->GetMedianTimePast(). However blocks including transactions which are only mature under the old rules are still accepted; this is *not* the soft-fork required to actually rely on the new constraint in production.
The lock-time code currently uses CBlock::nTime as the cutoff point for time based locked transactions. This has the unfortunate outcome of creating a perverse incentive for miners to lie about the time of a block in order to collect more fees by including transactions that by wall clock determination have not yet matured. By using CBlockIndex::GetMedianTimePast from the prior block instead, the self-interested miner no longer gains from generating blocks with fraudulent timestamps. Users can compensate for this change by simply adding an hour (3600 seconds) to their time-based lock times.
If enforced, this would be a soft-fork change. This commit only adds the functionality on an unexecuted code path, without changing the behaviour of Bitcoin Core.
Nagle appears to be a significant contributor to latency now that the static
sleeps are gone. Most of our messages are relatively large compared to
IP + TCP so I do not expect this to create enormous overhead.
This may also reduce traffic burstyness somewhat.
João Barbosa