I thought we had removed this a long time ago, TBH, its really
confusing feedback to users that we display whether a tx was
broadcast to immediate neighbor nodes, given that has little
indication of whether the tx propagated very far.
Respend transactions that conflict with transactions already in the
wallet are added to it. They are not displayed unless they also involve
the wallet, or get into a block. If they do not involve the wallet,
they continue not to affect balance.
Transactions that involve the wallet, and have conflicting non-equivalent
transactions, are highlighted in red. When the conflict first occurs, a
modal dialog is thrown.
CWallet::SyncMetaData is changed to sync only to equivalent transactions.
When a conflict is added to the wallet, counter nConflictsReceived is
incremented. This acts like a change in active block height for the
purpose of triggering UI updates.
These days we regard transactions with one confirmation to be
'Confirmed'.
Waiting for 6 confirmations is a recommendation but should not
keep the transaction shown as unconfirmed.
Misc code sanity:
- Merge maturity/status enums, they had become completely disjunct
- 'confirmed' flag is now called 'countsForBalance' for clarity
- Exclamation mark icon for conflicted transactions
- Show mouseover status for conflicted transactions as "conflicted"
- Don't show inactive transactions on overview page overview
Use misc methods of avoiding unnecesary header includes.
Replace int typedefs with int##_t from stdint.h.
Replace PRI64[xdu] with PRI[xdu]64 from inttypes.h.
Normalize QT_VERSION ifs where possible.
Resolve some indirect dependencies as direct ones.
Remove extern declarations from .cpp files.
- try to enforce the same style to all Qt related files
- remove unneeded includes from the files
- add missing Q_OBJECT, QT_BEGIN_NAMESPACE / QT_END_NAMESPACE
- prepares for a pull-req to include Qt5 compatibility
Previously when a transaction was set to lock at a specific block the
calculation was reversed, returning a negative number. This broke the UI
and caused it to display %n in place of the actual number.
In addition the previous calculation would display "Open for 0 blocks"
when the block height was such that the next block created would
finalize the transaction. Inserted the word "more" and changed the
calculation so that the last message would be "Open for 1 more block" to
better match user expectations.
- Also, prepare for OP_EVAL by calling all transactions without bitcoin address "SendToOther"/"RecvFromOther",
(IP tx'es are so rare they can be put together with funky EV_EVAL scripts)
