Can*t call chainActive.Tip()->nHeight in core.cpp

I want to call chainActive.Tip()->nHeight in core.cpp. It is not possible, I am interested in every idea.

Here is an example :

bool GetH()
    int nBlockHeight = chainActive.Tip()->nHeight;  
    if(nBlockHeight < FORKX17_Main_Net ) 
        return true;    
        return false; 

uint256 CBlockHeader::GetHash() const 
    if (GetH())     
        return HashX11(BEGIN(nVersion), END(nNonce)); 
       return HashX17(BEGIN(nVersion), END(nNonce));    

Also that is not possible:

CBlockIndex* pindexPrev = chainActive.Tip();
if (pindexPrev->nHeight <= FORKX17_Main_Net)

enter image description here

How to Reset Dragon Miner 1TH/s IP Address?

How can I reset the IP address of a Dragon Miner 1TH/s machine?

Mistakenly, I entered the wrong IP in the miner when changing the network IP address, and now my miner is not visible on the network. What I entered was like “IP”.

So how can I reset my miner? It has the SD card option.

Mining algorithm in

I wanted to convert the following bitcoin mining python code to (2012) and I tried to convert it’s functionality, but it throws some errors and I’m stuck as I even can’t get the resulting value of "header" variable.

and the final hash result should be 0000000000000000e067a478024addfecdc93628978aa52d91fabd4292982a50, but I’m no where near that.

why this produces errors, converting from hex to byte is not the correct method?

in python L is used to format it to long right?, so what does the <L & <LLL in the python code do? and is this ::-1 used to prevent overflow when reading the hex string?

and, in exp = bits >> 24 what does it do, bitwise operations?

import hashlib, struct

ver = 2
prev_block = "000000000000000117c80378b8da0e33559b5997f2ad55e2f7d18ec1975b9717"
mrkl_root = "871714dcbae6c8193a2bb9b2a69fe1c0440399f38d94b3a0f1b447275a29978a"
time_ = 0x53058b35 # 2014-02-20 04:57:25
bits = 0x19015f53

exp = bits >> 24
mant = bits & 0xffffff
target_hexstr = '%064x' % (mant * (1<<(8*(exp - 3))))
target_str = target_hexstr.decode('hex')

nonce = 0
while nonce < 0x100000000:
    header = ( struct.pack("<L", ver) + prev_block.decode('hex')[::-1] +
          mrkl_root.decode('hex')[::-1] + struct.pack("<LLL", time_, bits, nonce))
    hash = hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(header).digest()).digest()
    print nonce, hash[::-1].encode('hex')
    if hash[::-1] < target_str:
        print 'success'
nonce += 1

The VB.NET code I’ve been coding up until now is,

Public Class Form1
Dim version As Long = 0
Dim time As Integer
Dim pblock As Byte
Dim mklroot As Byte
Dim header As String
Dim nonce As Integer = 856192328

Private Sub Button1_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
    Textbox1.Text = "2"
    Textbox2.Text = "000000000000000117c80378b8da0e33559b5997f2ad55e2f7d18ec1975b9717"
    Textbox3.Text = "871714dcbae6c8193a2bb9b2a69fe1c0440399f38d94b3a0f1b447275a29978a"
    Textbox4.Text = "0x53058b35" '2014-02-20 04:57:25
    Textbox5.Text = "0x19015f53"

    Dim n As Int32 = T2.Text.Length - 1

    version = CLng(Textbox1.Text)
    'pblock = CByte(Textbox2.Text)
    pblock = Convert.ToByte(Convert.ToInt32(Textbox2.Text, 16))
    mklroot = Convert.ToByte(Convert.ToInt32(Textbox3.Text, 16))
    time = CInt(Textbox4.Text)

    header = version & pblock & mklroot & time & nonce
    Textbox6.Text = header

   End Sub
 End Class

Why is the ledger public?

To me, banking is not a public thing. I don’t want people to know what’s in my bank account at what time, or who I sent money to.

I know that I can make a new address for each transaction, as addresses are ‘free’. But this isn’t the case for say, a coffee shop, which would want only a single address for people to send money to (usually in the form of a QR code printout hanging on the wall). I can effectively track the incoming and outgoing cash flow of a coffee shop by just tracing the blockchain, can’t I? If I were a rival shop, this would be very useful to me.

How much testing is done on each pull request before it is merged?

Frequently after one pull request is merged, multiple other pull requests follow to clean up a problem created by the first PR

Recent example:

Normally no real harm is done. Is this no big deal or a sign that more testing should be done before Bitcoin pull requests are merged?