There is no RPC call named `rescanwallet`, i.e. fix this by renaming to
the actual RPC called `rescanblockchain`.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
sed -i s/rescanwallet/rescanblockchain/ $(git grep -l rescanwallet)
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
4fef534428 wallet: use GetChange() when computing waste (S3RK)
87e0ef9031 wallet: use GetChange() in tx building (S3RK)
15e97a6886 wallet: add SelectionResult::GetChange (S3RK)
72cad28da0 wallet: calculate and store min_viable_change (S3RK)
e3210a7225 wallet: account for preselected inputs in target (S3RK)
f8e796348b wallet: add SelectionResult::Merge (S3RK)
06f558e4e2 wallet: accurate SelectionResult::m_target (S3RK)
c8cf08ea74 wallet: ensure m_min_change_target always covers change fee (S3RK)
Pull request description:
Benefits:
1. more accurate waste calculation for knapsack. Waste calculation is now consistent with tx building code. Before we always assumed change for knapsack even when the solution is changeless4.
2. simpler tx building code. Only create change output when it's needed
3. makes it easier to correctly account for fees for CPFP inputs (should be done in a follow up)
In the first three commits we fix the code to accurately track selection target in `SelectionResult::m_target`
Then we introduce new variable `min_change` that represents the minimum viable change amount
Then we introduce `SelectionResult::GetChange()` which incapsulates dropping change for fee logic and uses correct values of `SelectionResult::m_target`
Then we use `SelectionResult::GetChange()` in both tx building and waste calculation code
This PR is a refactoring and shouldn't change the behaviour.
There is only one known small change (arguably a bug fix). Before we dropped change output if it's smaller than `cost_of_change` after paying change fees. This is incorrect as `cost_of_change` already includes `change_fee`.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 4fef534428
Xekyo:
crACK 4fef534428
furszy:
Code review ACK 4fef5344
w0xlt:
ACK 4fef534428
Tree-SHA512: 31a7455d4129bc39a444da0f16ad478d690d4d9627b2b8fdb5605facc6488171926bf02f5d7d9a545b2b59efafcf5bb3d404005e4da15c7b44b3f7d441afb941
1dc03dda05 [doc] remove non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (glozow)
32024d40f0 scripted-diff: remove mention of BIP125 from non-signaling var names (glozow)
Pull request description:
We have pretty thorough documentation of our RBF policy in doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md. It enumerates each rule with several sentences of rationale. Also, each rule pretty much has its own function (3 and 4 share one), with extensive comments. The doc states explicitly that our rules are similar but differ from BIP125, and contains a record of historical changes to RBF policy.
We should not use "BIP125" as synonymous with our RBF policy because:
- Our RBF policy is different from what is specified in BIP125, for example:
- the BIP does not mention our rule about the replacement feerate being higher (our Rule 6)
- the BIP uses minimum relay feerate for Rule 4, while we have used incremental relay feerate since #9380
- the "inherited signaling" question (CVE-2021-31876). Call it discrepancy, ambiguous wording, doc misinterpretation, or implementation details, I would recommend users refer to doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md
- the signaling policy is configurable, see #25353
- Our RBF policy may change further
- We have already marked BIP125 as only "partially implemented" in docs/bips.md since 1fd49eb498
- See comments from people who are not me recently:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25038#discussion_r909507429
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25575#issuecomment-1179519204
This PR removes all non-signaling mentions of BIP125 (if people feel strongly, we can remove all mentions of BIP125 period). It may be useful to refer to the concept of "tx opts in to RBF if it has at least one nSequence less than (0xffffffff - 1)" as "BIP125 signaling" because:
- It is succint.
- It has already been widely marketed as BIP125 opt-in signaling.
- Our API uses it when referring to signaling (e.g. getmempoolentry["bip125-replaceable"] and wallet error message "not BIP 125 replaceable"). Changing those is more invasive.
- If/when we have other ways to signal in the future, we can disambiguate them this way. See #25038 which proposes another way of signaling, and where I pulled these commits from.
Alternatives:
- Changing our policy to match BIP125. This doesn't make sense as, for example, we would have to remove the requirement that a replacement tx has a higher feerate (Rule 6).
- Changing BIP125 to match what we have. This doesn't make sense as it would be a significant change to a BIP years after it was finalized and already used as a spec to implement RBF in other places.
- Document our policy as a new BIP and give it a number. This might make sense if we don't expect things to change a lot, and can be done as a next step.
ACKs for top commit:
darosior:
ACK 1dc03dda05
ariard:
ACK 1dc03dda
t-bast:
ACK 1dc03dda05
Tree-SHA512: a3adc2039ec5785892d230ec442e50f47f7062717392728152bbbe27ce1c564141f85253143f53cb44e1331cf47476d74f5d2f4b3cd873fc3433d7a0aa783e02
c3b099ace0 wallet, tests: Test bumpfee's max input weight calculation (Andrew Chow)
116a620ce7 Make DUMMY_CHECKER availble outside of script/sign.cpp (Andrew Chow)
ff638323d1 test, bumpfee: Check that psbtbumpfee can bump txs with external inputs (Andrew Chow)
1bc8106d4c bumpfee: be able to bump fee of a tx with external inputs (Andrew Chow)
31dd3dc9e5 bumpfee: Clear scriptSigs and scriptWitnesses before calculated max size (Andrew Chow)
a0c3afb898 bumpfee: extract weights of external inputs when bumping fee (Andrew Chow)
612f1e44fe bumpfee: Calculate fee by looking up UTXOs (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
This PR allows `psbtbumpfee` to return a PSBT for transactions that contain external inputs. This does not work for bumping in the GUI nor `bumpfee` because these need private keys available to sign and send the transaction. But `psbtbumpfee` returns a psbt, so it is fine to not be able to sign.
In order to correctly estimate the size of the inputs for coin selection, the fee bumper will use the size of the inputs of the transaction being bumped. Because the sizes of signatures are not guaranteed, for external inputs, the fee bumper will verify the scripts with a special SignatureChecker which will compute the weight of all of the signatures in that input, and compute their weights if those signatures were maximally sized. This allows the fee bumper to obtain a max size estimate for each external input.
Builds on #23201 as it relies on the ability to pass weights in to coin selection.
Closes #23189
ACKs for top commit:
ishaanam:
reACK c3b099ace0
t-bast:
Re-ran my tests agains c3b099ace0, ACK
Tree-SHA512: 40016ec52d351430977579cfa2694c7e6764f42c9ce09d3a6f1753b767f86053f296d9de988248df033be6d725d67badbf2a5ef82c8ace23c61487729b7691e5
0cb6d2aec6 Bugfix: Wallet: Document expectations for AddWalletFlags (now InitWalletFlags) correctly (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Includes some slight refactoring (return type changed, current status checked)
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 0cb6d2aec6
w0xlt:
ACK 0cb6d2aec6
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 0cb6d2aec6. This is a clarifying change, and should prevent the InitWalletFlags method being called incorrectly. I left a comment suggestion, but feel free to ignore it.
Tree-SHA512: fa18e9471b5e89d35cbc01526e6d4dbe4eee8faa9646847248909af1751b33014a6f9a42fe70a1331c0d73adea79008b8fc3ae2b51a641eba3e36d5c631327f6
When bumping the fee of a transaction containing external inputs,
determine the weights of those inputs. Because signatures can have a
variable size, the script is executed with a special SignatureChecker
which will compute the total weight of the signatures in the transaction
and the weight if they were all maximum size signatures. This allows us
to compute the maximum weight of the input for use during coin
selection.
ef8e2a5b09 tests: Test that external inputs of txs in wallet is handled correctly (Andrew Chow)
eb879634db wallet: Try estimating input size with external data if wallet fails (Andrew Chow)
a537d7aaa0 wallet: SelectExternal actually external inputs (Andrew Chow)
f2d00bfe1a wallet: Add CWallet::IsMine(COutPoint) (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
if a transaction is being funded that has an external input, and that input's parent is also in the wallet, we will fail to detect that and fail to fund the transaction. In order to correctly detect such inputs, we need to be doing `IsMine` on all specified inputs in order to use `Select` and `SelectExternal` correctly. Additionally `SelectCoins` needs to call `CalculateMaximumSignedInputSize` with the correct parameters which depends on whether the wallet is able to solve for the input. Because there are some situations where the wallet could find an external input to belong to it (e.g. watching an address - unable to solve, but will be ISMINE_WATCHONLY), instead of switching which `CalculateMaximumSignedInputSize` to use, we should call the one that uses the wallet, and if that fails, try again with the one that uses external solving data.
Also adds a test for this case.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK ef8e2a5b09
furszy:
ACK ef8e2a5b
ishaanam:
reACK ef8e2a5b09
Tree-SHA512: a43c4aefeed4605f33a36ce87ebb916e2c153fea6d415b02c9a89275e84a7e3bf12840b33c296d2d2bde46350390da48d9262f9567338e3f21d5936aae4caa1e
Instead of choosing whether to use the wallet or external data when
estimating the size of an input, first use the wallet, then try external
data if that failed.
If an external input's utxo was created by a transaction that the wallet
knows about, then it would not be selected using SelectExternal. This
results in either funding failure or incorrect weight calculation.
fa3f15f2dd refactor: Avoid copies in FlatSigningProvider Merge (MacroFake)
Pull request description:
`Merge` will create several copies unconditionally:
* To initialize the args `a`, and `b`
* `ret`, which is the merge of the two args
So change the code to let the caller decide how many copies they need/want:
* `a`, and `b` must be explicitly moved or copied by the caller
* `ret` is no longer needed, as `a` can be used for it in place "for free"
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK fa3f15f2dd
furszy:
looks good, ACK fa3f15f2
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK fa3f15f2dd. Confirmed that all the places `std::move` was added the argument actually did seem safe to move from. Compiler enforces that temporary copies are explicitly created in non-move cases.
Tree-SHA512: 7c027ccdea1549cd9f37403344ecbb76e008adf545f6ce52996bf95e89eb7dc89af6cb31435a9289d6f2eea1c416961b2fb96348bc8a211d550728f1d99ac49c
8cd21bb279 refactor: improve readability for AttemptSelection (josibake)
f47ff71761 test: only run test for descriptor wallets (josibake)
0760ce0b9e test: add missing BOOST_ASSERT (josibake)
db09aec937 wallet: switch to new shuffle, erase, push_back (josibake)
b6b50b0f2b scripted-diff: Uppercase function names (josibake)
3f27a2adce refactor: add new helper methods (josibake)
f5649db9d5 refactor: add UNKNOWN OutputType (josibake)
Pull request description:
This PR is to address follow-ups for #24584, specifically:
* Remove redundant, hard-to-read code by adding a new `OutputType` and adding shuffle, erase, and push_back methods for `CoinsResult`
* Add missing `BOOST_ASSERT` to unit test
* Ensure functional test only runs if using descriptor wallets
* Improve readability of `AttemptSelection` by removing triple-nested if statement
Note for reviewers: commit `refactor: add new helper methods` should throw an "unused function warning"; the function is used in the next commit. Also, commit `wallet: switch to new shuffle, erase, push_back` will fail to compile, but this is fixed in the next commit with a scripted-diff. the commits are separate like this (code change then scripted-diff) to improve legibility.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 8cd21bb279
aureleoules:
ACK 8cd21bb279.
LarryRuane:
Concept, code review ACK 8cd21bb279
furszy:
utACK 8cd21bb2. Left a small, non-blocking, comment.
Tree-SHA512: a1bbc5962833e3df4f01a4895d8bd748cc4c608c3f296fd94e8afd8797b8d2e94e7bd44d598bd76fa5c9f5536864f396fcd097348fa0bb190a49a86b0917d60e
a6b0c1fcc0 doc: add releases notes for 25504 (listsinceblock updates) (Antoine Poinsot)
0fd2d14454 rpc: add an include_change parameter to listsinceblock (Antoine Poinsot)
55f98d087e rpc: output parent wallet descriptors for coins in listunspent (Antoine Poinsot)
b724476158 rpc: output wallet descriptors for received entries in listsinceblock (Antoine Poinsot)
55a82eaf91 wallet: allow to fetch the wallet descriptors for a given Script (Antoine Poinsot)
Pull request description:
Wallet descriptors are useful for applications using the Bitcoin Core wallet as a backend for tracking coins, as they allow to track coins for multiple descriptors in a single wallet. However there is no information currently given for such applications to link a coin with an imported descriptor, severely limiting the possibilities for such applications of using multiple descriptors in a single wallet. This PR outputs the matching imported descriptor(s) for a given received coin in `listsinceblock` (and friends).
It comes from a need for an application i'm working on, but i think it's something any software using `bitcoind` to track multiple descriptors in a single wallet would have eventually. For instance i'm thinking about the BDK project. Currently, the way to achieve this is to import raw addresses with labels and to have your application be responsible for wallet things like the gap limit.
I'll add this to the output of `listunspent` too if this gets a few Concept ACKs.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK a6b0c1fcc0
achow101:
re-ACK a6b0c1fcc0
Tree-SHA512: 7a5850e8de98b439ddede2cb72de0208944f8cda67272e8b8037678738d55b7a5272375be808b0f7d15def4904430e089dafdcc037436858ff3292c5f8b75e37
It's useful for an external application tracking coins to not be limited
by our change detection. For instance, for a watchonly wallet with two
descriptors a transaction from one to the other would be considered a
change output and not be included in the result (if the address was not
generated by this wallet).
This is a refactor, putting the burden to think about thread safety to
the caller. Otherwise, there is a risk that the caller will assume
thread safety where none exists, as is evident in the previous two
commits.
When we have preselected inputs the coin selection search target is reduced
by the sum of (effective) values. This causes incorrect m_target value.
Create separate instance of SelectionResult for all the preselected inputs and
set the target equal to the sum of (effective) values. Target for preselected
SelectionResult is equal to the delta for the search target. To get the final
SelectionResult with accurate m_target we merge both SelectionResult instances.
SelectionResult::m_target should be equal to actual selection target.
Selection target is the sum of all recipient amounts plus non input fees.
So we need to remove change_fee from the m_target. It's safe because change
target is always greater than the change fee, so we can always cover fees
if change output is created.
292b1a3e9c GetExternalSigner(): fail if multiple signers are found (amadeuszpawlik)
Pull request description:
If there are multiple external signers, `GetExternalSigner()` will
just pick the first one in the list. If the user has two or more
hardware wallets connected at the same time, he might not notice this.
This PR adds a check and fails with suitable message, forcing the user to disconnect all but one external signer, so that there is no ambiguity as to which external signer was used.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
tACK 292b1a3e9c
achow101:
ACK 292b1a3e9c
Tree-SHA512: e2a41d3eecc607d4f94e708614bed0f3545f7abba85f300c5a5f0d3d17d72c815259734accc5ca370953eacd290f27894ba2c18016f5e9584cd50fa1ec2fbb0b
acda7e8686 [coin selection] consolidate m_change_target and m_min_change_target (glozow)
Pull request description:
These values are both intended for the same thing. Their divergence seems to be the result of an incomplete rename.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK acda7e8686
Xekyo:
ACK acda7e8686
furszy:
ACK acda7e86
aureleoules:
ACK acda7e8686.
Tree-SHA512: 4b86171af5d893f7172373bb404bad12c49588ad1e22eb0544c242173f4bc4dede2ff1270c93c9f02f503ab8d9f66b841a8319d0ecb5e896d0fe8727cf03dbf4
b16f93cadd script/sign: remove needless IsSolvable() utility (Antoine Poinsot)
c232ef20c0 outputtype: remove redundant check for uncompressed keys in AddAndGetDestinationForScript (Antoine Poinsot)
Pull request description:
Now that we have descriptors there is no need to try to sign for a scriptPubKey using dummy signatures, and using a mocked verification of this witness against the interpreter, just to make sure we know how to spend such a Script. Just try to infer a solvable descriptor: any scriptPubKey that we can sign for can be inferred as such.
This came up in #24149 but i think it's worth it on its own.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK b16f93cadd
achow101:
re-ACK b16f93cadd
furszy:
ACK b16f93ca, only change is the `IsSolvable` helper function removal.
Tree-SHA512: 137068157ce90210b710b1bf9ac3c400e2ff5af1112f892094b69875ea473d6a899f52adb51e5030cb907dee517602059cd1661107808558efa5de842ba12b41
fb9faffae3 extended keys: fail to derive too large depth instead of wrapping around (Antoine Poinsot)
8dc6670ce1 descriptor: don't assert success of extended key derivation (Antoine Poinsot)
50cfc9e761 (pubk)key: mark Derive() as nodiscard (Antoine Poinsot)
0ca258a5ac descriptor: never ignore the return value when deriving an extended key (Antoine Poinsot)
d3599c22bd spkman: don't ignore the return value when deriving an extended key (Antoine Poinsot)
Pull request description:
We would previously silently wrap the derived child's depth back to `0`. Instead, explicitly fail when trying to derive an impossible depth, and handle the error in callers.
An extended fuzzing corpus of `descriptor_parse` triggered this behaviour, which was reported by MarcoFalke.
Fixes #25751.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
re-ACK fb9faffae3
instagibbs:
utACK fb9faffae3
Tree-SHA512: 9f75c23572ce847239bd15e5497df2960b6bd63c61ea72347959d968b5c4c9a4bfeee284e76bdcd7bacbf9eeb70feee85ffd3e316f353ca6eca30e93aafad343
it was pointed out by a few reviewers that the code block at the end
of attempt selection was difficult to follow and lacked comments.
refactor to get rid of triple nested if statement and improve
readibility.
switch to new methods, remove old code. this also
updates the Size, All, and Clear methods to now use
the coins map.
this commit is not strictly a refactor because previously
coin selection was never run over the UNKNOWN type until the last
step when being run over all. now that we are iterating over each,
it is run over UNKNOWN but this is expected to be empty most of the time.
Co-authored-by: furszy <matiasfurszyfer@protonmail.com>
