utACK 3a9dfe9

utACK

ACK

@paveljanik How about "vout index"?

If we're changing it I think @xekyo suggestion is best.

Sorry, but:

$ git grep "The output number" *
rpcrawtransaction.cpp:            "         \"vout\":n        (numeric, required) The output number\n"
rpcrawtransaction.cpp:            "       \"vout\": n,         (numeric) The output number\n"
rpcrawtransaction.cpp:            "         \"vout\":n,                  (numeric, required) The output number\n"
wallet/rpcwallet.cpp:            "         \"vout\": n         (numeric) The output number\n"
$ 

@paveljanik: That may be so, but this number is more specifically the position within the transaction’s outputs. That’s why "index" would be more to the point. :)
If others agree, it could be updated in all the positions that you listed. If we’re not going to change it, I agree, though, that it should be consistent.

@xekyo It depends on your view. It can be index into vout array and the number of the vout in vouts. ;-)

I do not plan to change it in this PR.

I feel that "vout number" is ambiguous: For a minute I thought you were telling me the line referred to "the number of outputs" as in how many there are.

But, since it refers to "an unspent transaction output" here, index would be an improvement because it is the correct technical term, making it easier to grasp and more precise. Anyway, your PR is an improvement to the previous state, so I ACK.