IsSuperMajority() moved to separate soft forks unit#6774
IsSuperMajority() moved to separate soft forks unit#6774CodeShark wants to merge 3 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
be5082e to
539702d
Compare
|
utACK |
|
utACK |
|
Please clean up class/struct Params: |
src/consensus/softforks.h
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As pointed out by @paveljanik, this should be a struct.
539702d to
df089cf
Compare
|
@paveljanik @dcousens Fixed class->struct |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're going to eventually use this for Hardfork consensus changes too, maybe it would be better to have a more generic name for the file/module: forks, changes, upgrades?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or could be done now with less total work, that's the point.
|
Apart from my bike-shedding nits, ut ACK. |
|
I changed my mind about this. I prefer something like jtimon@8ec8241 again. |
|
@jtimon why do you prefer it? Still utACK from me, but needs rebase |
|
It's simpler and achieves the task of encapsulating consensus code more simply (although of course this is relative). I don't think a UseRule() function is interesting getting the consensus validation flags that include those rules (and I would unify other future consensus flags [like the one for bip113] with the script ones too). |
|
Sorry, that was a mistake, I thought I was talking on #6747 . This is just a tiny and pointless moveonly IMO. |
|
I think we can close this now. Also I recall talk of replacing the ISM checks with block heights. |
CODE MOVE ONLY
This PR creates a new unit which will be handling soft fork logic. For now all we do is move IsSuperMajority() from main.cpp to consensus/softforks.cpp.