Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of MinedType GetGeneratedType - II #1390

jamescowens · 2019-01-21T16:51:40Z

This is a continuation of Paul's #1295, rebased, debugged, and enhanced, with the icons from the new UI.

…nd not amount

…pport

jamescowens · 2019-01-24T19:36:30Z

Addresses #303 and #1269

jamescowens · 2019-02-01T19:37:45Z

Tomas/Ravon.... I know this implementation is not ideal, but it is good enough and works. We still have oddities with listtransaction rpc calls, but these issues pre-date this PR and in fact exist in 4.0.1.0. So I would like to get this merged into Camilla.

jamescowens · 2019-02-01T19:38:34Z

I will do a separate PR for the minor issue of putting info on sidestaking and splitting status into the getinfo.

jamescowens · 2019-02-05T16:11:46Z

Tomas?

tomasbrod · 2019-02-06T13:15:54Z

src/qt/transactiondesc.cpp

+            case MinedType::POR               :    strHTML += tr("MINED - POR");        break;
+            case MinedType::ORPHANED          :    strHTML += tr("MINED - ORPHANED");   break;
+            case MinedType::POS_SIDE_STAKE    :    strHTML += tr("POS SIDE STAKE");     break;
+            case MinedType::POR_SIDE_STAKE    :    strHTML += tr("POR SIDE STAKE");     break;


When MINED - POS, this should be SIDE STAKE - POS

No, because the side stake is only on the output that has an address that is different than the stake input. The stake return to the original miner on the original address of the staking UTXO input is not a side stake. We have discussed creating a different category for returns to the original staker which is the remainder, after the distribution of the side stake to the receiving address. This would require creating two more enum categories to handle that.

Is it right when I say, The POS_SIDE_STAKE (and por) is shown only in wallet of the receiver of the sidestake? I do not understand why it should be worded in different word order than MINED - POS (and por).

Yes. POS_SIDE_STAKE and POR_SIDE_STAKE is only shown on the receiving wallet. The remainder which returns to the source wallet after the side stake distribution is simply labeled POS or POR... I will post pictures...

The reasoning is that the remainder that returns is just like a normal stake return, except it is a lower amount because sidestakes have been taken out. This return is not to another address, hence the return itself is not a sidestake.

A strong argument can be made to create two more entries in the enum to handle the stake returns after a POS or POR sidestake has been taken out, to indicate that the full amount is not coming back to the staking address. I am open for that, and we would use the gold or purple cube with the red top to indicate that, much like we are using the gold cube with the green top to indicate the receiver of the side stake.

It isn't necessary though, and I rather would do this in an additional PR, probably coupled with the UI work rather than mess further with it here... We need to get Camilla out of the door.

The red boxes are the stake returns to the source wallet for a POR and POS style stake. (The reason that wallet had both a POR and POS is the minimum block span between two consecutive research rewards was not satisfied.

The green boxes are the destination wallet of the sidestaking. In this particular case, there are two different sidestake entries pointing to different addresses in the same wallet. It shows separate transactions as intended...

tomasbrod · 2019-02-06T13:18:22Z

src/qt/transactionrecord.cpp

+            // Count the number of outputs that have a pubkey equal to the first (non-empty) output.
+            // This are the stakesplits.
+            if (txout.scriptPubKey == wtx.vout[1].scriptPubKey)
+                nNumberOfOutputs++;


This can fail, because on splitstake, the first output is P2PK, while the second is P2PKH. See https://hr.tbrada.eu/gbx/block/2ae492a0f1868d0b83b17b3b1073d04683f389be7bb8a683c9b0864489be2aa2

I think that second output was a sidestake, not splitstake. The intention here is to merge split UTXO's NOT sidestake UTXOs. So I disagree with you.

For example, if there are three vouts that are UTXO splits (i.e. back to the same address as the input, or equivalently vout[1]), then we want those three merged together into a net transaction for display. Conversely, if there are sidestakes to other addresses those should be separated out. I have confirmed this to work properly in test,

First part correct. The transaction was indeed side-stake. And I fully agree with the second paragraph.

What raised my concern was equivalence comparison of output scripts and the evidence that side-stake scripts are different than return-stake. And they would be unequal even if directed to the same address.

Yes. And that would cause them to be printed out as separate "transactions" in the UI, which is exactly what we want. A sidestake looped back to the same address will be shown as a separate transaction from the (split) stake return...

tomasbrod · 2019-02-06T13:25:25Z

src/wallet.cpp

@@ -2611,3 +2611,53 @@ void CWallet::GetKeyBirthTimes(std::map<CKeyID, int64_t> &mapKeyBirth) const {
        mapKeyBirth[it->first] = it->second->nTime - 7200; // block times can be 2h off
 }

+MinedType GenerateType(const uint256& tx, unsigned int vout)


Can this function be renamed so it does not suggest that the Type is going to be Generated?

I guess so. This was Paul's choice.

What would you like it to be called?

getGenerateType, getTypeOfGenerated, TypeOfGeneration, (get)GenerationTxType

Changed it to getGeneratedType which is more descriptive and not misleading.

I don't think you pushed that change. Also, uppercase 'G' :)

jamescowens · 2019-02-16T20:33:33Z

Ok. This should be ready to go now.

jamescowens · 2019-02-18T15:34:48Z

WTF. I did a chmod because some of the files were 755 for some reason and it took that but not the actual change?

match to what the function is doing.

jamescowens · 2019-02-18T15:41:33Z

Ok. Should be there now...

iFoggz and others added 24 commits January 21, 2019 11:41

Introduce enum MinedType and GenerateType function

78cb1cc

Change the transaction table model to show type based on what it is a…

54a93a9

…nd not amount

Implement MinedType for selection of icons based on new implemnetation

ea839e0

Remove bool IsPoR

696837f

clean up tabs to 4 spacecs where i've done changes

7899d5e

clean up implementation

0ddf596

Change to use icons used elsewhere till new ones can be created in su…

dcd78b3

…pport

Add comment to enum about UNKNOWN

7bed0c8

change Listtransactions2 to use new implementation

d7a85c7

Remove ISPOR2 function

6a93c75

remove RemoteFlag section of Generated

7f10b02

fix compile issue

a579138

update rule

b5ca65b

Another big step

bfcf8fa

More changes including conforming of description of transaction

8efd474

some clean up

339dfb5

update icon section

f5937e5

remove last RemoteFlag

46e754e

add missing >

c5ed849

Add icons for sidestakes

acd6ce6

Correction of UTXO credit for coinstake

84ec4f1

Change to new UI icons for staking.

cb0e974

Further fixes for coinstake return outputs.

f3cef90

Coalesce stake output (returns) to the same address

0bbb342

jamescowens changed the title ~~Staging removal of 01234~~ Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of GenerateType/MinedType - Part II Jan 21, 2019

jamescowens changed the title ~~Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of GenerateType/MinedType - Part II~~ Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of GenerateType/MinedType - II Jan 21, 2019

denravonska added this to the Camilla milestone Jan 21, 2019

denravonska added the enhancement label Jan 21, 2019

tomasbrod mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2019

show sidestaking and splitting in get info #1391

Closed

jamescowens requested review from tomasbrod and denravonska February 1, 2019 19:36

Fix qt include file to fix bitcoin resource build error

1b38b7d

denravonska approved these changes Feb 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

jamescowens mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2019

Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of GenerateType/MinedType #1295

Closed

jamescowens self-assigned this Feb 5, 2019

tomasbrod reviewed Feb 6, 2019

View reviewed changes

Change GenerateType to GetGeneratedType for a better

3622421

match to what the function is doing.

jamescowens force-pushed the staging_removal_of_01234 branch from 517c3a9 to 3622421 Compare February 18, 2019 15:40

jamescowens changed the title ~~Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of GenerateType/MinedType - II~~ Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of MinedType GetGeneratedType - II Feb 18, 2019

denravonska merged commit 9f77efc into gridcoin-community:staging Feb 19, 2019

jamescowens mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2019

New Scraper and NN #1387

Merged

jamescowens deleted the staging_removal_of_01234 branch April 13, 2019 15:36

tomasbrod mentioned this pull request May 2, 2019

[Request] More indication when you've staked a superblock. #1451

Closed

jamescowens mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2020

Replace research accrual calculations with superblock snapshots #1657

Merged

cyrossignol mentioned this pull request May 18, 2021

gui: Optimize locks to improve responsiveness #2137

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of MinedType GetGeneratedType - II #1390

Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of MinedType GetGeneratedType - II #1390

jamescowens commented Jan 21, 2019

jamescowens commented Jan 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jamescowens commented Feb 1, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 1, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 5, 2019

tomasbrod Feb 6, 2019

jamescowens Feb 6, 2019

tomasbrod Feb 6, 2019

jamescowens Feb 16, 2019

jamescowens Feb 16, 2019

jamescowens Feb 16, 2019

jamescowens Feb 16, 2019

jamescowens Feb 16, 2019

tomasbrod Feb 6, 2019

jamescowens Feb 6, 2019

tomasbrod Feb 6, 2019

jamescowens Feb 16, 2019

tomasbrod Feb 6, 2019

jamescowens Feb 6, 2019

jamescowens Feb 6, 2019

tomasbrod Feb 6, 2019

jamescowens Feb 16, 2019

denravonska Feb 18, 2019

jamescowens Feb 19, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 16, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 18, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 18, 2019

Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of MinedType GetGeneratedType - II #1390

Removal of 0123 0124 & implementation of MinedType GetGeneratedType - II #1390

Conversation

jamescowens commented Jan 21, 2019

jamescowens commented Jan 24, 2019 • edited Loading

jamescowens commented Feb 1, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 1, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 5, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jamescowens commented Feb 16, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 18, 2019

jamescowens commented Feb 18, 2019

jamescowens commented Jan 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading