Skip to content

Conversation

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor

(based on #5181 as it would otherwise conflict and I'm lazy.)

Adds RPC calls to generate (and verify) merkle blocks which, though verify is less useful for Bitcoin Core, just making them more accessible so that (hopefully) they become useful for people to exchange around would be very nice.

Full Disclosure: This is required to sidechain-related work.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh, also a simple flag to getblock so you can get only the header. That one is not related to sidechains, but I needed it while debugging.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

coins should be before core ;)

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed all the nits that we're related to header-include (I believe we removed that from our coding standards?)

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Nov 6, 2014

We did; #5201. Still, feel free to follow them :)

@Diapolo
Copy link

Diapolo commented Nov 6, 2014

@TheBlueMatt You as a core dev, I really would love to see you still following that rules :).

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed include ordering for includes related to this pull (others are related to #5181)

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased on top of the now-merged #5181, also now support multiple transactions in one proof.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Jan 26, 2015

Concept ACK, but this new functionality needs a test in qa/rpc-tests.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@laanwj done.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the bitcoinchain0 branch 3 times, most recently from 6ff6284 to 45e4675 Compare February 14, 2015 23:55
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

headeronly (boolean) would need to be mentioned in the arguments here.

BTW: what about adding a getblockheader call, instead of adding a boolean argument? I'd slightly prefer that for readability/simplicity. It would only result in minimal code duplication.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the bitcoinchain0 branch 2 times, most recently from fc01dfb to fa5febe Compare April 13, 2015 17:45
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased, fixed an indentation error, removed the blockheader-only option (meh, people can just substring(0, 160) anyway...)

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt force-pushed the bitcoinchain0 branch 2 times, most recently from 30f0a6e to 649adf2 Compare April 20, 2015 03:52
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased. Review?

@gavinandresen
Copy link
Contributor

Tested ACK.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Apr 28, 2015

utACK

@laanwj laanwj merged commit 1ec900a into bitcoin:master Apr 28, 2015
laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2015
1ec900a Remove broken+useless lock/unlock log prints (Matt Corallo)
352ed22 Add merkle blocks test (Matt Corallo)
59ed61b Add RPC call to generate and verify merkle blocks (Matt Corallo)
30da90d Add CMerkleBlock constructor for tx set + block and an empty one (Matt Corallo)
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt deleted the bitcoinchain0 branch April 30, 2015 20:44
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants