fix: correct v23.1.4 checkpoint hash

[thepastaclaw]

Fix v23.1.4 checkpoint hash

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

The v23.1.4 mainnet checkpoint at height 2487500 was accidentally populated
with the nMinimumChainWork value instead of the block hash. Checkpoint lookup
treats these entries as block hashes, so the new checkpoint could not be found
in the block index.

What was done?

Updated the height 2487500 checkpoint entry to use the same block hash already
configured for consensus.defaultAssumeValid at that height:

00000000000000119fe42827219e0686d3f7b494ae65f823194c740c5dbab492

How Has This Been Tested?

• Ran git diff --check.
• Ran a local Python consistency check verifying:
  • the 2487500 checkpoint equals defaultAssumeValid;
  • the 2487500 checkpoint does not equal nMinimumChainWork.
• Ran pre-PR code review and got ship.
• Cross-checked height 2487500 block hash against Dash explorer data.

Breaking Changes

None.

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

[github-actions]

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs.

[thepastaclaw]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: ae16ddc1-d9aa-4289-972f-bc0854d6d160

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9adc0b1 and c3e3b9d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/chainparams.cpp

---

Walkthrough

In src/chainparams.cpp, the assume-valid checkpoint hash for mainnet at block height 2487500 was updated from the previous uint256S value (...ba7225...) to a new hash (...119fe428...). No other consensus parameters, logic, or declarations were modified.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'fix: correct v23.1.4 checkpoint hash' accurately and clearly describes the main change—correcting an incorrect checkpoint hash value in the v23.1.4 release.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is comprehensive and directly related to the changeset, explaining the bug, the fix applied, and the testing performed to validate the correction.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[UdjinM6]

utACK c3e3b9d

[thepastaclaw]

✅ Review complete (commit c3e3b9d)

[thepastaclaw]

Code Review

Verified the one-line checkpoint hash fix in src/chainparams.cpp at height 2487500. The new value matches consensus.defaultAssumeValid for the same height (line 222) and the chainTxData reference (line 344), while nMinimumChainWork retains its correct chainwork value (line 221). Both agents and CodeRabbit produced no findings; the PR is correctly scoped and accurate.

GitHub does not allow PastaClaw to approve their own PR, so this verified clean result is posted as a COMMENT review instead of APPROVE.