Follow missed change from neo-project/neo#1816 .
`None` may be used for any signer. Currently it is used
for sender to only pay fees, or to sign tx attributes.
First PUSHDATA1 is from invocation script, the second PUSHDATA1 is
from verification script. E.g.:
Invocation script:
INDEX OPCODE PARAMETER
0 PUSHDATA1 035913b9588da23a5c3ce14b2886a6b8ebb6a0eb92bdaa948510dfb5ae5194d6cb <<
35 PUSHNULL
36 SYSCALL Neo.Crypto.VerifyWithECDsaSecp256r1 (95440d78)
Verification script:
INDEX OPCODE PARAMETER
0 PUSHDATA1 3930fe5a9b44682f37741955df4a5f2585ed5aa438fa6e17ae51083673b1d64253e5a859c0cf168be67971e53a23c1c40582777d94a8e391db23ff613849627d <<
This was done in https://github.com/neo-project/neo/pull/1693
for native calls. `OnPersist` script still uses `DROP` though
as value is pushed via `CheckReturn` logic for regular calls.
It can't ever happen. We're guaranteed to have a consistent chain of headers
(we're verifying them above, if we're not verifying --- it's not our fault)
that starts at HeaderHeight that was actual when we were asking for it
previously. HeaderHeight can only move forward, so if that happened that would
be filtered out by the condition below and the first one can't happen. Though
to be absolutely sure change the second check to only pass "+1" headers (which
is what we want).
It's used in two places now:
* Blockchain.AddBlock()
This one does transaction duplication check of its own, doing it in
Verify() is just a waste of time. Merkle tree root hash value check is
still relevant though
* Block.DecodeBinary()
We're decoding blocks for the following purposes:
- on restore from dump
The block will be added to the chain via AddBlock() and that will do a
full check of it (if configured to do so)
- on retrieving the block from the DB (DAO)
We trust the DB, if it's gone wild, this check won't really help
- on receiving the block via P2P
It's gonna be put into block queue and then end up in AddBlock() which
will check it
- on receiving the block via RPC (submitblock)
It is to be passed into AddBlock()
- on receiving the block via RPC in a client
That's the only problematic case probably, but RPC client has to trust
the server and it can check for the signature if it really
cares. Or a separate in-client check might be added.
As we can see nothing really requires this verification to be done the way it
is now, AddBlock can just have a Merkle check and DecodeBinary can do fine
without it at all.
It's a no-op and there is nothing we can do about it, header contents could
only be checked against chain state, there is nothing to check for internal
consistency.
