mine: count sigops while selecting, not only when validating

CheckBlock() caps a block at MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS and neither assembler counted
against it. Bytes do not bound what a block costs to verify: every OP_CHECKSIG
is an elliptic-curve verification, so a template comfortably inside the size
budget can still be one the network refuses for demanding more work than a
block is allowed to.

Counted with CTransaction::GetSigOpCount -- the same function CheckBlock()
sums, not a second implementation of it -- and seeded from the coinbase,
because CheckBlock() sums over all of vtx. The comparison matches too:
CheckBlock() fails on `> MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS`, so a block exactly on the limit is
valid and selection accepts it. Assembly and validation differing by one is
the shape of the bug this series started with.

Unlike the size budget this takes no margin. There is no use for headroom in a
sigop count, so assembly holds itself to the consensus number exactly.

Assembly only; MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS and the CheckBlock() test are unchanged.

1 files changed, 12 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h
index 1f452b5..30e25ef 100644
--- a/src/main.h
+++ b/src/main.h
@@ -43,15 +43,24 @@ static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
 static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE / 2;
 
 // Room for one more transaction in a template that currently weighs
-// nBlockSize bytes?
+// nBlockSize bytes and spends nBlockSigOps signature operations?
 //
 // Asked BEFORE the transaction is appended, never after. A template that has
 // already overshot is one CheckBlock() rejects, and asking afterwards only
 // measures the waste. Both assemblers call this, so neither can drift into a
 // different idea of what fits.
-inline bool BlockTemplateFits(unsigned int nBlockSize, unsigned int nTxSize)
+//
+// Size gets a margin (half the cap); sigops do not. There is no cheap way to
+// spend the sigop budget usefully and no reason to reserve headroom in it, so
+// assembly holds itself to the same number CheckBlock() enforces -- and to the
+// same comparison. CheckBlock() fails on `> MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS`, so a block
+// sitting exactly on the limit is valid and this has to accept it too.
+// Assembly and validation disagreeing by one is how the size bug started.
+inline bool BlockTemplateFits(unsigned int nBlockSize, unsigned int nBlockSigOps,
+                              unsigned int nTxSize, unsigned int nTxSigOps)
 {
-    return (nBlockSize + nTxSize <= MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN);
+    return (nBlockSize + nTxSize <= MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN &&
+            nBlockSigOps + nTxSigOps <= MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS);
 }
 static const int64 COIN = 100000000;
 // Total Bitflash emission: identical to Bitcoin (21 million).