Hmm I just realize that we have the same information in getblockchaininfo, there it also uses the datadir name to identify the network. Not sure whether it's nice to change the debug window now (or we should use the BIP70 naming in getblockchaininfo as well, which may make sense... ).

@laanwj IMHO it should be consistent all over the place and if we want to compare the strings it would be best to use ones that can be compared, so I vote for the BIP70 naming.

I could add a NetworkIDToString() function in chainparams, which will be the ClientModel::getNetworkName() code. I then also can remove the ClientModel from PaymentServer.

Edit: See 2nd commit, that could be used instead, what do you think?

Yes - I was initially against putting the BIP70 names on ChainParams as it was seemingly a UI-only thing @jtimon but with the field in getblockchaininfo it makes sense to move it to the core anyway.

Yes, I would have used a string network id chainparam like it's done in https://github.com/Diapolo/bitcoin/commit/dcca44115dfcafb38cc435679b40fde3c8179d19
I would mention the BIP 70 there in chainparams directly.
But once that is done I don't see the need to keep the ClientModel::getNetworkName() method with the ugly elif list.

You can just replace
if (details.network() != clientModel->getNetworkName().toStdString())
with
if (details.network() != Params().NetworkIDString())

and completely forget about my PaymentServer::mapNetworkIdToName and your ClientModel::getNetworkName.
That's what I would have done from the beginning if I wasn't adviced against it.
I would also replace getinfo's (rpcmisc.cpp:76) and getmininginfo's (rpcmining.cpp:271) "testnet" in favor of "network", "mode" or something like that which would also call Params().NetworkIDString(), allowing us to also get rid of CChainParams::RPCisTestNet()

I'm currently reworking this...

Done...

Seems we have two equivalent pulls now...

@laanwj Not really, I took care of clientmodel and rpcconsole also ;).

Right :)
Code changes look OK to me, haven't tested yet.

I created another PR (#4333) using jtimon@f5ae6c9 and making my other proposed change (removing chainparams::RPCisTestnet) on top of it.

Automatic sanity-testing: PASSED, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/f5ae6c98260fdd3c0ca203ce67c6467d9cdaea95 for binaries and test log.
This test script verifies pulls every time they are updated. It, however, dies sometimes and fails to test properly. If you are waiting on a test, please check timestamps to verify that the test.log is moving at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/current/
Contact BlueMatt on freenode if something looks broken.