Show the receiving address for generation transactions #417

pull cdhowie wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from cdhowie:show-generation-address changing 2 files +23 −11
  1. cdhowie commented at 8:38 PM on July 14, 2011: contributor

    As has been requested by a few people, here is a patch that shows the address coins were generated to in transaction dumps (listtransaction, etc).

  2. sgimenez commented at 11:56 PM on July 14, 2011: contributor

    Nice! Maybe this should also be added in the UI (Generated with: address).

    Removing the return in wallet.cpp is harmless, but it has nothing to do with this issue. Better to remove it in order to prevent merge conflicts.

  3. cdhowie commented at 3:58 AM on July 15, 2011: contributor

    It is required to remove the return statement. If the rest of the function does not execute, listReceived won't be filled with any data, and therefore the receiving address will not be available to ListTransactions.

  4. sgimenez commented at 12:30 PM on July 15, 2011: contributor

    Ok, I'm confused. I misread the diff.

    But there is a problem with that, because when listReceived is filled the transaction will appear twice: once with category "generated" and once with category "received".

  5. cdhowie commented at 3:17 PM on July 15, 2011: contributor

    Fixed, I hope. :)

  6. Show the receiving address for generation transactions 1ba78c60d1
  7. sgimenez commented at 12:13 AM on July 16, 2011: contributor

    In fact, generated amounts could be handled internally exactly like received amounts. Then, It would be trivial to associate them with their respective addresses and accounts in the listing (reusing existing code). In particular, this would also allow us to deal with non-standard (multiple address) generations properly.

    I came up with a8e6510042f2f7f951414c7da124668b30da4acd. Interestingly, this is both a code simplification and a fix for a lacking feature (almost bug). I think the "few people" you mentioned would happy with such a change, would they?

  8. cdhowie commented at 5:56 PM on July 23, 2011: contributor

    @sgimenez: Looks good. I'll close this one since your patch supersedes it (and this patch was always a hack anyway).

  9. cdhowie closed this on Jul 23, 2011

  10. lateminer referenced this in commit 0c29920111 on Feb 23, 2019
  11. rajarshimaitra referenced this in commit 09f1d93cff on Aug 5, 2021
  12. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021
Contributors

github-metadata-mirror

This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository bitcoin/bitcoin. This site is not affiliated with GitHub. Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-04-29 03:16 UTC

This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me