Fix fee of CreateMultisigAccount

[erikzhang]

Fix #2710

[roman-khimov]

Anyone tested it already wrt mainnet compatibility?

[roman-khimov]

My gut feeling is that computationally it's more like CheckSigPrice/2, but that needs to be measured of course.

[shargon]

Need to be checked if it was used in mainnet. But code looks good

[Jim8y]

I agree with @shargon, changes like this have to be cautious cause it might cause new node fail to synchronize.

[Jim8y]

We should name every hard fork, to make it more clear which fork we are working on.

Not much change to make based on this pr, just add an enum with a list of hardfork names (including names of future harforks) then match them with the hardfork versions would work.

[superboyiii]

We should name every hard fork, to make it more clear which fork we are working on.

Not much change to make based on this pr, just add an enum with a list of hardfork names (including names of future harforks) then match them with the hardfork versions would work.

Good idea.

[roman-khimov]

We should name every hard fork, to make it more clear which fork we are working on.

There is also a use case for private networks with "whatever is the latest" hard fork enabled, it should be easy to configure that too.

[erikzhang]

We should name every hard fork, to make it more clear which fork we are working on.

Done.

There is also a use case for private networks with "whatever is the latest" hard fork enabled, it should be easy to configure that too.

Agree. Now you can just delete Hardfork section or leave its contents empty to configure a "whatever is the latest" private network.

[roman-khimov]

BTW, if we're doing this then maybe we can make T4 testnet compatible with 3.2.2? It only requires making #2653 change fork-dependent (see #2673).

[shargon]

Code looks good to me, good change!

[erikzhang]

@shargon Can you revert the commit "T4 testnet compatible with 3.2.2"? We can discuss it in a new issue or pr.