Wladimir [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-10-27 📝 Original message:On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at ...

📅 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