AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 15 Cryptographic libraries

cryptonote_core: remove dead code

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Thomas

58/100 · Thin
cryptonote_core: remove dead code

Never had a caller:
- Blockchain::init taking HardFork*&: added in 8f863e742, no caller in
any revision since
- tx_memory_pool::get_txpool_weight, set_txpool_max_weight: added as
get_txpool_size and set_txpool_max_size in bc61ae69b alongside
--max-txpool-size, which is wired through tx_memory_pool::init
instead; renamed size to weight in 5ffb2ff9b, still uncalled
- get_transaction_version: added in b750fb27b, no caller since

Dead when their last user went:
- core::get_blocks taking vector<pair<blobdata, block>>, both overloads:
last caller removed in 9faef1f83; ed2c81ed9 later converted the
already-dead signatures from std::list to std::vector. The
vector<block> overload is still used by core_tests and is kept
- blocks_container: 9e82b694d removed the in-memory blockchain that
used it
- tx_by_fee_and_receive_time_entry: 445319d3f replaced the sorted
container it keyed with a boost::bimap
- m_store_blockchain_interval: its do_call went with the original
blockchain_storage format in 9e82b694d
- m_fork_moaner: its do_call went with the "We are most likely forked"
message in f0371210e

Also drops two break statements after a return in ver_mixed_rct_semantics
and the doc comments belonging to the removed declarations.
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit is a routine cleanup that removes unused functions, type aliases, and unreachable code from Monero's core blockchain and transaction-pool modules. The removed code had no callers, so the change cannot be used to attack the network or users. It is purely a maintenance refactor.

Recommended action

No security action required. Treat as normal code-cleanup commit; standard review and CI validation are sufficient.

Security signals we found

No strong security signals were identified.

Risk score

Why this scored 15/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 10/10
Evidence quality 5/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.