📅 Original date posted:2014-10-27
📝 Original message:On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:57:12 AM Wladimir wrote:
>> Let me know if there is anything else you think is ready (and not too
>> risky) to be in 0.10.
>
> At the very least, we need:
> #5106 Bugfix: submitblock: Use a temporary CValidationState to determine ...
> #5103 CreateNewBlock and miner_tests: Also check generated template is ...
> #5078 Bugfix: CreateNewBlock: Check that active chain has a valid tip ...
> (or at least some conclusion for the problem discussed therein)
OK
> Harmless/No reason not to have:
> #3727 RPC: submitblock: Support for returning specific rejection reasons
> #1816 Support for BIP 23 block proposal
> #5144 Qt: Elaborate on signverify message dialog warning
> #5071 Introduce CNodePolicy for putting isolated node policy code and ...
> (futher commits exist that should ideally get in after this is merged)
ACK on the UI change,
I think it would be best to let the full-blown "miner policy class"
wait for 0.11.
> Debatable (but harmless, and miners seem to want it):
> #5077 Enable customising node policy for datacarrier data size with a ...
OK, that's a low-risk change, it just makes what is now a constant configurable.
Wladimir
Wladimir [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…ymc2p
2023-06-07 15:26:51
in reply to nevent1q…39x9
Author Public Key
npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2pSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:26:51Event JSON
{
"id": "85cc7a5cdc7923a05e707d33c79898952ab77d0f436fb8eff096c9b67a67ad8e",
"pubkey": "30217b018a47b99ed4c20399b44b02f70ec4f58ed77a2814a563fa28322ef722",
"created_at": 1686151611,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"850110c2a71bee626abdb59b4472940b255cd70f97a2051ecd6e475ad24be138",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a63c860e7c3c92e108d98ba44a658c42804eba3f799256243869da12989fae76",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-10-27\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:57:12 AM Wladimir wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Let me know if there is anything else you think is ready (and not too\n\u003e\u003e risky) to be in 0.10.\n\u003e\n\u003e At the very least, we need:\n\u003e #5106 Bugfix: submitblock: Use a temporary CValidationState to determine ...\n\u003e #5103 CreateNewBlock and miner_tests: Also check generated template is ...\n\u003e #5078 Bugfix: CreateNewBlock: Check that active chain has a valid tip ...\n\u003e (or at least some conclusion for the problem discussed therein)\n\nOK\n\n\u003e Harmless/No reason not to have:\n\u003e #3727 RPC: submitblock: Support for returning specific rejection reasons\n\u003e #1816 Support for BIP 23 block proposal\n\u003e #5144 Qt: Elaborate on signverify message dialog warning\n\u003e #5071 Introduce CNodePolicy for putting isolated node policy code and ...\n\u003e (futher commits exist that should ideally get in after this is merged)\n\nACK on the UI change,\n\nI think it would be best to let the full-blown \"miner policy class\"\nwait for 0.11.\n\n\u003e Debatable (but harmless, and miners seem to want it):\n\u003e #5077 Enable customising node policy for datacarrier data size with a ...\n\nOK, that's a low-risk change, it just makes what is now a constant configurable.\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "7d1baadfac67e53f67c022a0050479f3a09dda43c0a5dee500419f8b30b8c5bf4908e4b69ea7d1143ff6345eedafdd1d30afc05db9339180e8c9e5de78f17a75"
}