Skip to content

Conversation

@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor

@jtimon jtimon commented Sep 30, 2017

Like upstream bitcoin/bitcoin#11427

#251 needs less disruption after this (no need to remove bip30's code anymore).

@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor Author

jtimon commented Oct 4, 2017

I think we should merge this even if it's rejected upstream or fully remove bip30 instead as discussed in #251 (although that option is slightly harder to rebase).

CBlockIndex *pindexBIP34height = pindex->pprev->GetAncestor(chainparams.GetConsensus().BIP34Height);
//Only continue to enforce if we're below BIP34 activation height or the block hash at that height doesn't correspond.
fEnforceBIP30 = fEnforceBIP30 && (!pindexBIP34height || !(pindexBIP34height->GetBlockHash() == chainparams.GetConsensus().BIP34Hash));
fEnforceBIP30 = fEnforceBIP30 && pindex->nHeight > chainparams.GetConsensus().BIP34Height;
Copy link
Contributor

@instagibbs instagibbs Oct 4, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you've got the logic backwards here. We don't need BIP30 at all if we have BIP34 activated.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oops, yeah, corrected the nit upstream but not here.

@jtimon jtimon added the 0.14.1 label Oct 10, 2017
@jtimon jtimon added 0.14.1 and removed 0.14.1 labels Oct 16, 2018
@instagibbs
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like upstream PR was abandoned, closing.

@instagibbs instagibbs closed this Mar 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants