I also moved some RPC methods that were not at the end of the file with
the other ELEMENTS RPC methods. This makes the diff on my machine look
crazy. Let's hope GitHub has more intelligent diffs..
fa178a6385 [rpc] mining: Omit uninitialized currentblockweight, currentblocktx (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Previously we'd report "0", which could be mistaken for a valid number. E.g. the number of transactions is 0 or the block weight is 0, whatever that means.
Tree-SHA512: ee94ab203a329e272211b726f4c23edec4b09c650ec363b77fd59ad9264165d73064f78ebb9e11b5c2c543b73c157752410a307655560531c7d5444d203aa0ea
Calling getblocktemplate without the segwit rule specified is most
likely a client error, since it results in lower fees for the miner.
Prevent this client error by failing getblocktemplate if called without
the segwit rule specified.
The block height validation is gated by the startup option
`con_blockheightinheader`, accesible in custom chains only
using option `chain=<name>`. Only if set to true will this
field be (de)serialized and evaluated in consensus logic.
Otherwise the field is simply ignored, other than being
stored in memory as the default value 0.
fa6ab8ada1 rpc: Return more specific reject reason for submitblock (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The second commit in #13439 made the `TODO` in the first commit impossible to solve.
The meaning of `fNewBlock` changed from "This is the first time we process this block" to "We are about to write the new *valid* block".
So whenever `fNewBlock` is true, the block was valid. And whenever the `fNewBlock` is false, the block is either valid or invalid. If it was valid and not new, we know it is a `"duplicate"`. In all other cases, the `BIP22ValidationResult()` will return the reason why it is invalid.
Tree-SHA512: 4b6edf7a912339c3acb0fccfabbdd6d812a0321fb1639c244c2714e58dc119aa2b8c6bf8f7d61ea609a1b861bbc23f920370fcf989c48452721e259a8ce93d24
