postStateHash, so should be the state root of block 4). It should thus not verify that it also throws on these other blocks? Of course block 6 cannot be ran (as block 5 is incorrect), but a client could throw when it tries to validate the block header.
CALLopcode, it depends on the activated HFs what gas should be charged here)
<Dimitry (tests)> There are:
<Jochem Brouwer> Another question @Dimitry , how should I interpret these kind of tests: https://github.com/ethereum/tests/blob/86098807850c6211042f6a35ad8a48fc6072e856/BlockchainTests/TransitionTests/bcFrontierToHomestead/blockChainFrontierWithLargerTDvsHomesteadBlockchain.json
They have multiple blocks with the same block number which appears to be valid; but they seem to run on another "chainname". How should I interpret this?
<Jochem Brouwer> Hi @Dimitry , this test: https://github.com/ethereum/tests/blob/86098807850c6211042f6a35ad8a48fc6072e856/BlockchainTests/TransitionTests/bcFrontierToHomestead/blockChainFrontierWithLargerTDvsHomesteadBlockchain2.json
This test assumes an error on the second chain at block 5. But, the TD and the number of transactions are the same for both chains. Why should any client try to run the second chain (and thus encounter this error?). I would assume that clients only try to run a new sidechain iff the reported TD of this chain is higher, or if TD is the same and the number of transactions of this sidechain is higher?