Its checkpoint validation is working even with no prefix, because base_blob<BITS>::SetHex. However I guess this PR is right way and for code consistency like Mainnet.
Missing blockhash prefix (0x) for Testnet and Regtest #20124
pull decryp2kanon wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from decryp2kanon:master changing 1 files +2 −2-
decryp2kanon commented at 10:15 PM on October 11, 2020: contributor
-
Add blockhash prefix (0x) for Testnet and Regtest f195085415
- DrahtBot added the label Validation on Oct 11, 2020
-
promag commented at 12:20 AM on October 12, 2020: member
ACK, change is correct (
0xprefix is skipped inbase_blob<BITS>::SetHex). No strong opinion whether this should be merged or not only because of code consistency. - decryp2kanon renamed this:
Add blockhash prefix (0x) for Testnet and Regtest
Missing blockhash prefix (0x) for Testnet and Regtest
on Oct 12, 2020 -
laanwj commented at 4:17 PM on October 12, 2020: member
~0 on this, uint256S takes
0xprefixes for historical reasons but the input is not really a number, it's a hash, a binary blob. Ever since the split witharith_uint256,uint256is misnamed and simply a 256-bit blob. (but at the time, the rename fromuint256toblob256wasn't accepted)No strong opinion but I don't think this makes anything any clearer.
-
instagibbs commented at 8:14 AM on January 8, 2021: member
I actually didn't know that
0xwas possible. ~0 on this as well. -
MarcoFalke commented at 8:22 AM on January 8, 2021: member
Closing for now due to controversy
- MarcoFalke closed this on Jan 8, 2021
- DrahtBot locked this on Aug 16, 2022
Contributors
Labels