This diff adds a new policy to reject blocks whose hash is higher than the real time target.
The policy is gated behind a flag and disabled by default, as the node still lacks support for mining compliant blocks.
Depends on D16773.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
PiRK roqqit - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rABC8356480e591e: Reject blocks that violate the real time target policy
ninja all check-all
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rABC Bitcoin ABC
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
| test/functional/abc_p2p_avalanche_policy_rtt.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 114–117 ↗ | (On Diff #49531) | Reading this without digging into the internals of check_new_block is confusing. The API suggests the new block is rejected but then what immediately follows is a check that it was actually accepted. The easiest fix is the rename check_new_block to something like check_and_accept_new_block with a rename of the expect_accepted parameter to expect_initially_accepted. |
| 121 ↗ | (On Diff #49531) | This test could be improved to check late blocks as well (now += 1200, 1800, etc). I know this overlaps with the unit tests a bit, but it costs very little to have that extra confidence. |
| src/test/rtt_tests.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 317–322 ↗ | (On Diff #49592) | this needs to loop through every block to make this check more comprehensive |
| test/functional/abc_p2p_avalanche_policy_rtt.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 117 ↗ | (On Diff #49592) | so this block is ... not accepted on this line? but accepted on the next line? not sure what is going on here |
| test/functional/abc_p2p_avalanche_policy_rtt.py | ||
|---|---|---|
| 117 ↗ | (On Diff #49592) | The block is initially parked by the node for not matching the RTT (the False argument at second position), then accepted by avalanche because the peers vote made the node reconsider its position. |
| src/test/rtt_tests.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 325 ↗ | (On Diff #49607) | this loop still needs to check block 17 |
| src/test/rtt_tests.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 325 ↗ | (On Diff #49607) | The algo doesn't look for N-17 previous pointer, because it doesn't need it |