Bugfix: Don't check the genesis block header before accepting it #6299
Conversation
src/main.cpp
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer those merge conflicts to stay merge conflicts, as it forces you to understand if that additional check matters for your merge.
What can I say, I once fixed a bug where a lack of indentation of a newly added bit of code lead to a mistake that could have potentially played a part of getting someone killed, so... :/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm happy to indent if people think it's better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that is still the plan at some point, although I'd say it's very low priority.
Reducing the diff is generally a good reason, but not enough to deviate this much from the coding style IMO. This makes the control flow harder to interpret in an important function.
|
Can you please cherry-pick #6298 into this, to see if the reindex test passes in travis. |
|
Updated with the correct indentation (bigger diff). |
|
utACK |
|
Btw, for the sake of easier review, you can always do a diff that ignores whitespace via To see that at github, just append ?w=1 to the url: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6299/files?w=1 |
This fixes an error triggered when running with -reindex after bitcoin#5975
This test finishes very quickly, so it should be part of the default set of tests in rpc-tests.
|
Needed rebase. |
|
Tested ACK |
|
There's an alternative solution to the bug in #6230. |
|
ACK |
Bitcoin 0.12 RPC PRs 1 Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs: - bitcoin/bitcoin#6266 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6257 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6271 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6158 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6307 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6290 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6262 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6088 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6339 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6299 (partial, remainder in #2099) - bitcoin/bitcoin#6350 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6247 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6362 - bitcoin/bitcoin#5486 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6417 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6398 (partial, remainder was included in #1950) - bitcoin/bitcoin#6444 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6456 (partial, remainder was included in #2082) - bitcoin/bitcoin#6380 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6970 Part of #2074.
5 participants
This should fix an error that was introduced in #5975 , thanks @sdaftuar for reporting the error.
I will work on a more elegant solution: the genesis block should never be checked at all; it is valid by definition. But it seems that will be more work than I first thought so let's just fix the bug first.