Can you rebase this onto #4326?

Rebased on top of Diapolo:clientmodel_networkname
So maybe I should maintain the testnet field and add the network one?
Maybe I can leave "Params().NetworkID() == CChainParams::TESTNET" there and still get rid of the RPCisTestnet param...

@jtimon Yes, Params().NetworkID() == CChainParams::TESTNET is clearer than RPCIsTestnet. But please keep the RPC interface the same for now.

Oh, I was coding it and didn't read you. So should I just cancel the last commit then?

Yes. We can remove them at a later time when there is a a RPC overhaul with other backwards-compat breaking changes.

Adding the "network" field doesn't seem backwards incompatible, but it allows people to start using that instead of "testnet", which could be declared deprecated or something to encourage people to move already in preparation for that RPC overhaul.
That's why I ask if I should remove jtimon@bdb2f8e

Thoughts?

I'm fine with adding it to getmininginfo. But don't touch getinfo. It should die.

Perhaps 0.10 is a good release for killing getinfo :)?

@Diapolo I'd rather wait another major release (eg: 0.10 deprecates it, 0.11 removes it). But I don't want that discussion now.

Ok, done. I didn't know getinfo was meant to die.
Maybe it makes sense to add it in other places besides getmininginfo?
I only considered those two because only them had the "testnet" field.

Well getblockchaininfo and getmininginfo have it now, I'd guess that is enough.

oh, I see. Probably I should use "chain" instead of "network" and the help could be uniform too.
Maybe it should be:
" "chain": "xxxx", (string) current network name as defined in BIP70 (main, test, regtest)\n"
instead of
" "chain": "xxxx", (string) current chain (main, testnet3, regtest)\n"

but the change in #4326 doesn't seem backwards compatible (it's going to return "test" instead of "testnet3" [by the way, that shouldn't had changed in bip70 given that this "chain" was here already]).
So maybe it's better to just keep "chain" as it was, and include the new "network" parameter.

Thoughts?

@jtimon chain is very new, there is IMO no problem changing the values there.

Good. Then I will use chain as well, and correct the help info in getblockchaininfo

Needs rebase

Rebased

Automatic sanity-testing: PASSED, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/f6984e814134d2383e1353ce8aa951649f5fcbd2 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.