Open domob1812 opened 5 years ago
This tentatively sounds good to me (coupling the wallet and mining code never seemed sane to me), but I'll defer an ACK/NACK until we've heard from the miner community.
On second thought, this is not as high priority for me as it seemed. The problem is that even if we can remove getauxblock
from Namecoin, we most likely need to keep getwork
around for Xaya a bit longer. So from my point of view, maintenance work will remain up.
That said, I still think it would be good for Namecoin and the longer-term development if we could get rid of getauxblock
.
Upstream Bitcoin removed
generate
and with that is now trying to decouple the wallet and mining code increasingly. In Namecoin, we still havegetauxblock
that is a "wallet mining" command. This is creating more and more maintenance headaches with upstream merges.We already have
createauxblock
andsubmitauxblock
since quite some time, which can be used instead ofgetauxblock
with an explicitly provided address (i.e. without the need to tie in with an internal wallet).What do you think (especially miners) about removing
getauxblock
for 0.19+ completely? @wangchun, @YihaoPeng, @JeremyRand