Softforks unit #6747
Softforks unit #6747
Conversation
|
concept ACK, once over utACK |
|
Can you put softforks.{cpp,h} under the consensus/ directory? |
|
@luke-jr yes. |
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
softforks_unit
branch
from
7ac4bee to
e4d6cab
Compare
|
Nice! |
|
Concept ACK |
|
Long-term isnt the goal to just switch enforcement of most softforks to blockheight/timestamp and then use versionbits globally? (I believe most things were rolled out via a IsSuperMajority-like system, and then the code was just simplified later by replacing the checks with what-the-switchover-date-was checks). |
|
@TheBlueMatt indeed - that's exactly what will end up happening once things are buried deeply enough. |
|
Mmm, ok, well I hadnt really read the code to begin with and I figured you were jumping the gun, but the code does simplify things on its own, so concept ack that. |
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
softforks_unit
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2ddd2c8 to
1b00ad2
Compare
|
I checked consensus is not affected by spinning up a new node and syncing from scratch. The node synced to the correct tip @ block 377385, ACK |
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
softforks_unit
branch
from
1b00ad2 to
1b82bc4
Compare
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
softforks_unit
branch
from
1b82bc4 to
fb12440
Compare
|
Rebased atop #6774 to make it easier to review code movements. |
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
softforks_unit
branch
5 times, most recently
from
3b067af to
a77e1a9
Compare
|
Apart from my nits on #6774, utACK |
src/main.cpp
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these "look in consensus/softfork.cpp" comments really necessary or useful?
|
I liked '''Consensus::GetFlags''' see jtimon@9ba7d06 even more, but this is definitely a step in the right direction... |
|
re-ACK |
|
Wouldn't it make sense to rebase this on top of #6816 ? |
src/consensus/softforks.h
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my optinion there's no need to include future softforks/hardforks here (perhaps with the exception of BIP65 which is already merged as a policy rule), they can add themselves in their own PRs if they're merged after this.
|
Sorry, I meant to say the following here: #6774 (comment) |
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
softforks_unit
branch
2 times, most recently
from
3625715 to
47c6f9c
Compare
…ion() and SoftForks::IsActive() functions to the softforks unit.
…s::IsSuperMajority directly.
…uperMajority() directly in main.cpp
… it from the unit interface.
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
softforks_unit
branch
from
47c6f9c to
2b8466d
Compare
|
rebase or close for now? |
|
I think 7575 supersedes this. |
|
@btcdrak well, it would need to be greatly rewritten after #7575, but what I think is the general idea it's still possible, see jtimon@dd446fa and jtimon@0321823 |
|
Needs rebase/new pull if still relevant |
|
Closing for now |
9 participants
SoftForks Unit
This PR gathers the various soft fork mechanisms into one place making it more orderly. As a positive side effect, it will also make the VersionBits implementation simpler.
This PR depends on #6774