Prepare for non-Base58 addresses [Step 3] #1679
Conversation
furszy
changed the title
|
Needs rebase. |
furszy
force-pushed
the
2020_more_base58_wrapper_work2
branch
from
fcf29b2 to
2126cf0
Compare
|
rebased. |
|
There is still a conflict in wallet.cpp |
Coming from btc@8d0041e607a0e5bff52152f3d8af504f3703baa7
furszy
force-pushed
the
2020_more_base58_wrapper_work2
branch
from
2126cf0 to
97bf8d0
Compare
|
because #1663 was merged. Rebased again. |
random-zebra
left a comment
random-zebra
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code review ACK.
Just a minor concern about the implementation of IsValidDestination(const std::string& str) and a couple nits for the comments.
Anyway, since the version of IsValidDestination with one argument is used only twice (in paymentserver.cpp and settingsmultisendwidget.cpp, where only regular addresses should be supported), we might just get rid of it, and use directly the more readable IsValidDestinationString(str, false).
Coming from btc@1e46ebdf8618e585568ffc1b093c79cc9be07b57
furszy
force-pushed
the
2020_more_base58_wrapper_work2
branch
from
97bf8d0 to
fa7e63d
Compare
|
Updated per @random-zebra's feedback |
random-zebra
left a comment
random-zebra
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
about fa7e63d660b55b5a42e00d97e6ae6dec437d4f58: why force it to a particular network (MAIN), and not use the current params with Params()?
|
good catch. no real explanation for that, just me being tired. None of those flows are used anyway. |
furszy
force-pushed
the
2020_more_base58_wrapper_work2
branch
from
fa7e63d to
e07286d
Compare
|
Updated with last feedback solved. |
|
merging... |
3 participants
Finished the complete removal of the base58 address class from the sources, migrated to the destination wrapper.
Plus includes bitcoin#11117 - last commit - and bitcoin#11259 as an extra.