Implement mempool and consensus block creation policies, almost the same as
SimplePolicy plugin for C# node provides with two caveats:
* HighPriorityTxType is not configured and hardcoded to ClaimType
* BlockedAccounts are not supported
Other than that it allows us to run successfuly as testnet CN, previously our
proposals were rejected because we were proposing blocks with oversized
transactions (that are rejected by PoolTx() now).
Mainnet and testnet configuration files are updated accordingly, but privnet
is left as is with no limits.
Configuration is currently attached to the Blockchain and so is the code that
does policying, it may be moved somewhere in the future, but it works for
now.
Both are very useful outside of the core, this change also makes respective
transactions initialize with the package as they don't depend on any kind of
input and it makes no sense recreating them again and again on every use.
It wasn't sorted when all validators were elected. There is also no need to do
`Unique()` on the result because validators are distinguished by the key, so
no two registered validators can have the same key.
- Attribute should have 2 fields (usage, data)
- VOut should have 4 (5) fields (asset, value, address, n)
- Script should have 2 fields (invocation, verification)
As C# node does it. Technically it's only needed for consensus and could be
implemented in the appropriate package, but for better compatibility with C#
node we're better returning it sorted right here.
We were completely lacking ValidatorsCount that is supposed to track the
number of votes with particular count of consensus nodes which in theory can
change the number of active consensus nodes (if it ever to exceed the number
of standby validators), so we were not producing the right count and based on
that not giving the right set of validators.
Fixes#512.
Simple as that: UnregisteredAndHasNoVotes != !RegisteredAndHasVotes
Registered validators should stay in the DB, we might be in the process of
updating votes for them and that starts with subtraction.
Lack of FreeGasLimit in privnet leads to gas limit exceeding in case of transactions with small amount of GAS to be used for invoke operation (< real cost of the transaction). Solution: Fixed constraint in case when FreeGasLimit == 0. So now we are able to perform transactions in privnet with FreeGasLimit = 0 for free.
Tesnet sync failed with:
Feb 07 00:04:19 nodoka neo-go[1747]: 2020-02-07T00:04:19.838+0300 WARN blockQueue: failed adding block into the blockchain {"error": "failed to store notifications: not supported", "blockHeight": 713984, "nextIndex": 713985}
because some (not so) smart contract emitted a notification with an
InteropItem inside.
Fix mempool and chain locking
This allows us easily make 1000 Tx/s in 4-nodes privnet, fixes potential
double spends and improves mempool testing coverage.
Our mempool only contains valid verified transactions all the time, it never
has any unverified ones. Unverified pool made some sense for quick unverifying
after the new block acceptance (and gradual background reverification), but
reverification needs some non-trivial locking between blockchain and mempool
and internal mempool state locking (reverifying tx and moving it between
unverified and verified pools must be atomic). But our current reverification
is fast enough (and has all the appropriate locks), so bothering with
unverified pool makes little sense.
We not only need to remove transactions stored in the block, but also
invalidate some potential double spends caused by these transactions. Usually
new block contains a substantial number of transactions from the pool, so it's
easier to make one pass over it only keeping valid items rather than remove
them one by one and make an additional pass to recheck inputs/witnesses.
It doesn't harm as we have transactions naturally ordered by fee anyway and it
makes managing them a little easier. This also makes slices store item itself
instead of pointers to it which reduces the pressure on the memory subsystem.
They shouldn't depend on the chain state and for the same transaction they
should always produce the same result. Thus, it makes no sense recalculating
them over and over again.
