Update defaultAssumeValid according to release-process.md. #10945

gmaxwell commented at 1:13 AM on July 28, 2017: contributor

Updated for block 477890.

Update defaultAssumeValid according to release-process.md.

Updated for block 477890.

9a8b054185

fanquake added this to the milestone 0.15.0 on Jul 28, 2017

gmaxwell commented at 1:13 AM on July 28, 2017: contributor

Address #10778 please tag for 0.... how did you do that so fast?

fanquake added the label Validation on Jul 28, 2017

in src/chainparams.cpp:208 in 9a8b054185

 204 | @@ -205,10 +205,10 @@ class CTestNetParams : public CChainParams {
 205 |          consensus.vDeployments[Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT].nTimeout = 1493596800; // May 1st 2017
 206 |  
 207 |          // The best chain should have at least this much work.
 208 | -        consensus.nMinimumChainWork = uint256S("0x00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001f057509eba81aed91");
 209 | +        consensus.nMinimumChainWork = uint256S("0x00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002830dab7f76dbb7d63");

achow101 commented at 1:29 AM on July 28, 2017:

This chainwork does not match the chainwork for the assumevalid block below.

achow101 commented at 1:45 AM on July 28, 2017:

Well the current testnet chainwork on my node is higher than that, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

gmaxwell commented at 4:29 AM on July 28, 2017:

It didn't before either. nMinimum is set at the the tip, but for testnet assume valid was set 20k blocks back due to reorgs. The reason for the difference is because even in a reorg the tip will be at or equal the minimum work, but it may not contain the old tip block.

jtimon commented at 11:00 PM on August 3, 2017:

Another possibility potentially less confusing for review it's also going back 20k blocks for the nMinimumChainWork to match the chain work of the chosen defaultAssumeValid. As explained to me last time they don't need to match, but perhaps someone different will ask the same question on each major release and the gain of them not matching is dubious to me (it's also more work for the coder if they don't match).

achow101 commented at 1:45 AM on July 28, 2017: member

utACK 9a8b054185eccd6d33395472b35fc70dad85b1a6

fanquake commented at 10:49 AM on July 28, 2017: member

utACK 9a8b054

gmaxwell commented at 12:07 AM on July 29, 2017: contributor

@petertodd

petertodd commented at 1:42 AM on July 29, 2017: contributor

sipa commented at 12:46 AM on July 30, 2017: member

chris-belcher commented at 2:15 AM on July 30, 2017: contributor

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I believe 0000000000000000003b9ce759c2a087d52abc4266f8f4ebd6d768b89defa50a is
a valid bitcoin block which has chain work 0x723d3581fe1bd55373540a

$ bitcoin-cli getblockheader 0000000000000000003b9ce759c2a087d52abc4266f8f4ebd6d768b89defa50a
{
  "hash": "0000000000000000003b9ce759c2a087d52abc4266f8f4ebd6d768b89defa50a",
  "confirmations": 312,
  "height": 477890,
  "version": 536870930,
  "versionHex": "20000012",
  "merkleroot": "5ee928cfc5f2d6b06426c1994f6fd3b16ea0d238fa8419218f78c24c8d98468f",
  "time": 1501203987,
  "mediantime": 1501202368,
  "nonce": 2239626010,
  "bits": "18014735",
  "difficulty": 860221984436.2223,
  "chainwork": "000000000000000000000000000000000000000000723d3581fe1bd55373540a",
  "previousblockhash": "000000000000000000eacdd2147c52d887bb08c7abba952ee04956e9922599a6",
  "nextblockhash": "000000000000000000a27a7ae25106d14f125d129486d870e9b35b2adee00e46"
}

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=GMDI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Christewart commented at 12:29 AM on July 31, 2017: member

laanwj merged this on Jul 31, 2017

laanwj closed this on Jul 31, 2017

laanwj referenced this in commit 2a50b11586 on Jul 31, 2017

jtimon commented at 8:18 PM on August 3, 2017: contributor

MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021