feat: patch btc namespace price parameters

[zone117x]

Closes https://github.com/blockstackpbc/devops/issues/540

This PR adds a patch to the btc namespace price parameters that get exported for Stacks 2.0. The goal is for names on the btc namespace to cost 2 STX per name.

@lgalabru can you verify the price parameters here are patched as intended? I ran into issues trying to test locally within the bns-test scripts.

[jcnelson]

Can we confirm that the .btc namespace gets instantiated when the Stacks 2.0 node boots up?

[zone117x]

Can we confirm that the .btc namespace gets instantiated when the Stacks 2.0 node boots up?

@jcnelson yes that is something we can either test manually or add to something like the automated migration test #2210

I'll make sure to do that before we get this merged 👍

[jcnelson]

Can you add it to #2210? Then I'll approve it.

[zone117x]

@jcnelson are we okay to test this manually? It will take some time to add name testing to that PR, and we're trying to get a finalized v1 export image out.

[zone117x]

@lgalabru I was able to get the Stacks 2.0 Clarity BNS tests working here: e23459f

And the parameters that result in 2 STX per name using the bns.clar contract are:

{
  buckets: [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1],
  base: 1000,
  coeff: 200,
  noVowelDiscount: 1,
  nonAlphaDiscount: 1,
}

Does this look right to you?

[jcnelson]

Manual testing is fine, but you should be able to add an automated test to stacks-blockchain that just queries .btc once the genesis block is instantiated. Would that be possible?

[zone117x]

Manual testing is fine, but you should be able to add an automated test to stacks-blockchain that just queries .btc once the genesis block is instantiated. Would that be possible?

Yes, but we can't add Stacks 2.0 tests in this 1.0 branch. We first need to PR against master/next with a new chainstate.txt produced from the change in this Stacks 1.0 branch. Otherwise that step has to be done locally/manually.

[lgalabru]

Since we have #2286, what's our take on discarding this PR, and letting @MarvinJanssen update the btc price function, post migration?

[diwakergupta]

Since we have #2286, what's our take on discarding this PR, and letting @MarvinJanssen update the btc price function, post migration?

I'd recommend keeping it in -- the PR is ready and there's no additional risk in having the namespace materialize with the correct price function in Stacks 2.0 genesis, but the converse is not true.

[zone117x]

This PR won't be ready until #2286 is finalized, afterwards we can finalize the price parameters in this PR.

[jcnelson]

As long as you're happy with the price parameters, this LGTM.

[lgalabru]

LGTM if this is the way!

[blockstack-devops]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.