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.
We can only add one block of the given height and we have two competing
goroutines to do that --- consensus and block queue. Whomever adds the block
first shouldn't trigger an error in another one.
Fix block relaying for blocks added via the block queue also, previously one
consensus-generated blocks were broadcasted.
The chain may already be more current than our dBFT state (like when the node
has commited something at view 0, but all the other nodes changed view and
accepted something at view 1), so in this case we should reinit dBFT on new
height.
While decoding payload, local implementations of Recovery*
messages were used, but when creating RecoveryMessage inside dBFT
library default NewRecoveryMessage was invoked. This lead to parsing
errors.
When system and network pressure is high it can be beneficial
to use transactions which and were already proposed.
The assumption is that they will be in other node's memory pool
with more probability.
There is no point in encoding the output of this function in a WIF format,
most of the users actually want the real key and those who need a WIF can
easily get if from the key (and it's simpler than getting the key from the
WIF).
It also fixes a severe bug in NEP2Decrypt, base58 decoding errors were not
processed correctly.
It reduces heap pressure a little for these elements as we don't have to
allocate/free them individually. And they're directly tied to transactions or
block, not being shared or anything like that, so it makes little sense for
them to be pointer-based. It only makes building transactions a little easier,
but that's obviously a minor usecase.
This allows easier reuse of opcodes and in some cases allows to eliminate
dependencies on the whole vm package, like in compiler that only needs opcodes
and doesn't care about VM for any other purpose.
And yes, they're opcodes because an instruction is a whole thing with
operands, that's what context.Next() returns.
