By specifying the `datacarriersize` option instead of the more
generic `acceptnonstdtxn`, we can be more specific about what
part of the transaction is non-standard and can be sure that all
other aspects follow the standard policy.
The previous diff touched most files in ./test/, so bump the headers to
avoid having to touch them again for a bump later.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
./contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./test/
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
The constant `MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE` has been removed from the
core implementation years ago due to being confusing and
superfluous, as it is implied by the block weight limit (see
PRs #10618 and #10608). Since there is also no point in
still keeping it in the functional test framework, we switch
to weight-based accounting on the relevant test code parts
and use `MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT` instead for the block limit
checks.
d2ce315fbf [docs] add release note for change to GBT (John Newbery)
0025c9eae4 [mining] segwit option must be set in GBT (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Calling getblocktemplate without the segwit rule specified is most
likely a client error, since it results in lower fees for the miner.
Prevent this client error by failing getblocktemplate if called without
the segwit rule specified.
Of the previous 1000 blocks (measured at block [551591 (hash 0x...173c811)](https://blockstream.info/block/000000000000000000173c811e79858808abc3216af607035973f002bef60a7a)), 991 included segwit transactions.
Tree-SHA512: 7933b073d72683c9ab9318db46a085ec19a56a14937945c73f783ac7656887619a86b74db0bdfcb8121df44f63a1d6a6fb19e98505b2a26a6a8a6e768e442fee
Calling getblocktemplate without the segwit rule specified is most
likely a client error, since it results in lower fees for the miner.
Prevent this client error by failing getblocktemplate if called without
the segwit rule specified.
5eb20f81d9 Consistently use ParseHashV to validate hash inputs in rpc (Ben Woosley)
Pull request description:
ParseHashV validates the length and encoding of the string and throws
an informative RPC error on failure, which is as good or better than
these alternative calls.
Note I switched ParseHashV to check string length first, because
IsHex tests that the length is even, and an error like:
"must be of length 64 (not 63, for X)" is much more informative than
"must be hexadecimal string (not X)" in that case.
Split from #13420
Tree-SHA512: f0786b41c0d7793ff76e4b2bb35547873070bbf7561d510029e8edb93f59176277efcd4d183b3185532ea69fc0bbbf3dbe9e19362e8017007ae9d51266cd78ae
ParseHashV validates the length and encoding of the string and throws
an informative RPC error on failure, which is as good or better than
these alternative calls.
Note I switched ParseHashV to check string length first, because
IsHex tests that the length is even, and an error like:
"must be of length 64 (not 63, for X)" is much more informative than
"must be hexadecimal string (not X)"
Sebastian Falbesoner