Remove BIP 22 and BIP 23

[scravy]

This removed some mining-related RPCs which were introduced in bitcoin for pooled mining but do not make any sense in unit-e. This has been separated from #212.

The RPCs removed are

• getblocktemplate
• submitblock
• getnetworkhashps

The BIPs no longer implemented are

• BIP 22 – getblocktemplate - Fundamentals
• BIP 23 – getblocktemplate - Pooled Mining

This closes #16

[cornelius]

There are a couple of references to the removed calls in the functional tests. I suppose that this is fixed with another commit?

txmemppol.h contains a reference to getblocktemplate for the nTrascationsUpdated member of the CTxMemPool class. Is this member still needed?

test/README.md mentions submitblock. This can probably just be removed.

utACK

[cornelius]

Same nit: s/their/its/

[cornelius]

DIdn't you fix this in some commit in this pull request. I thought I saw it changed. Only a very minor thing, though.

[scravy]

I thought I had. Maybe a merge issue. Will take care of that in a follow up pull request.

[scravy]

@cornelius That's correct (that there are references to these RPCs). It messes some functional test up pretty good, will check that. Most annoying is submit block and premined blocks, as they use them for testing e.g. segwit O.o Will take care of that.

[Gnappuraz]

It would be nice if we could update https://github.com/dtr-org/unit-e-docs/blob/master/bip-removal-reference.md as well. Not sure how many ppl knew about this but I think is important to take not of which BIPs makes it in and which don't.

[cornelius]

Would it make sense to also document it in https://github.com/dtr-org/unit-e/blob/master/doc/bips.md which BIPs are not implemented?

[Gnappuraz]

@cornelius sure, the document I posted is more for us not to forget what we did with various BIPs code.

[Ruteri]

utACK
Travis has some issues with it though, "The job exceeded the maximum log length, and has been terminated."
There are a couple of functional tests that try to use those.

[scravy]

@Ruteri Yeah, I'm ... doing something to some functional tests. Marked it as WIP for now, looking into it.

@Gnappuraz I am aware of that bip removal document, in the PR which this is taken out of I am mentioning that I'm going to update that document. To be frank though I don't like the document, especially since I realized that for example for the BIP 30 removal a removal entry had been added to that document but it had not been removed from the list of actually implemented BIPs in the main repository in the first place. That's a classic double booking and I don't see reason for needing to keep these two in sync. Then again I do not care enough about this and we do not remove BIPs every day (also there's just so many BIPs one could possibly remove).

EDIT: @Gnappuraz see #274

[Gnappuraz]

@Gnappuraz I am aware of that bip removal document, in the PR which this is taken out of I am mentioning that I'm going to update that document. To be frank though I don't like the document, especially since I realized that for example for the BIP 30 removal a removal entry had been added to that document but it had not been removed from the list of actually implemented BIPs in the main repository in the first place. That's a classic double booking and I don't see reason for needing to keep these two in sync. Then again I do not care enough about this and we do not remove BIPs every day (also there's just so many BIPs one could possibly remove).

I'd be completely fine with removing the document if we make it to reference the commits that change the PR implementation/removal in the BIPs doc. And also the other document is more for helping connecting the dots and see which stuff was removed and how more than being something official, if nobody needs it we can plainly remove it.