Version 2 transactions remain non-standard until CSV activates #7835

1. 
   sdaftuar commented at 7:09 pm on April 7, 2016: member

   Before activation, such transactions might not be reliably mined, so don’t allow into the mempool.

   Please tag for backport to 0.12.1

2. Version 2 transactions remain non-standard until CSV activates

   Before activation, such transactions might not be mined, so don't
   allow into the mempool.

   e4ba9f6b04
3. Tests: move get_bip9_status to util.py 5cb1d8a207
4. Test relay of version 2 transactions da5fdbb3a2
5. laanwj added the label Validation on Apr 7, 2016
6. 
   morcos commented at 7:35 pm on April 7, 2016: member

   utACK
7. jonasschnelli added the label Needs backport on Apr 7, 2016
8. 
   petertodd commented at 7:58 pm on April 7, 2016: contributor

   utACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7835/commits/da5fdbb3a2778523cce70d635c1aa2b31a693bc6
9. 
   jonasschnelli commented at 7:59 pm on April 7, 2016: contributor

   utACK da5fdbb3a2778523cce70d635c1aa2b31a693bc6
10. 
    paveljanik commented at 8:00 pm on April 7, 2016: contributor

    ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7835/commits/da5fdbb3a2778523cce70d635c1aa2b31a693bc6
11. 
    btcdrak commented at 8:01 pm on April 7, 2016: contributor

    tACK da5fdbb
12. in src/main.cpp: in da5fdbb3a2

    1024@@ -1025,6 +1025,14 @@ bool AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker(CTxMemPool& pool, CValidationState& state, const C
    1025     if (fRequireStandard && !IsStandardTx(tx, reason))
    1026         return state.DoS(0, false, REJECT_NONSTANDARD, reason);
    1027 
    1028+    // Don't relay version 2 transactions until CSV is active, and we can be
    1029+    // sure that such transactions will be mined (unless we're on
    1030+    // -testnet/-regtest).
    1031+    const CChainParams& chainparams = Params();
    

    ---

    ---

    

    jtimon commented at 8:03 pm on April 7, 2016:

    Can you move this to the top of the function (other parts of the function before this also call Params() and could use the variable in the future)?

    ---

    

    sdaftuar commented at 8:07 pm on April 7, 2016:

    Nothing above in this function calls Params(); I guess I didn’t check the functions called from here to see if they call Params(), but can we please fix that later when we change those functions? This has many ACKs now and is holding up 0.12.1.

    ---

    

    btcdrak commented at 8:47 am on April 8, 2016:

    @sdaftuar I agree, it’s not important for this pull.

    ---

    

    jtimon commented at 9:19 am on April 8, 2016:

    Sorry, I was in another branch, You are right for master. If you need to change the code for any other reason, I would appreciate moving this line too though.
13. 
    dcousens commented at 1:40 am on April 8, 2016: contributor

    utACK da5fdbb, but agreed with @jtimon.
14. 
    jl2012 commented at 9:28 am on April 8, 2016: contributor

    tACK da5fdbb
15. 
    CodeShark commented at 9:39 am on April 8, 2016: contributor

    utACK da5fdbb3a2778523cce70d635c1aa2b31a693bc6
16. 
    NicolasDorier commented at 9:59 am on April 8, 2016: contributor

    utACK da5fdbb
17. laanwj merged this on Apr 8, 2016
18. laanwj closed this on Apr 8, 2016

    ---

19. laanwj referenced this in commit 0afac87e81 on Apr 8, 2016
20. laanwj referenced this in commit 46898e7e94 on Apr 8, 2016
21. laanwj referenced this in commit 465d30915c on Apr 8, 2016
22. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 10:42 pm on June 9, 2016: member

    This was backported as 46898e7. Removing label
23. MarcoFalke removed the label Needs backport on Jun 9, 2016
24. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
sdaftuar morcos petertodd jonasschnelli paveljanik btcdrak jtimon dcousens jl2012 CodeShark NicolasDorier MarcoFalke

Labels
Validation