GlcoinCore/elements
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements.git synced 2026-08-17 13:07:54 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge 92fee79dab into merged_master (Bitcoin PR #19806)

Browse source 
Looks like James hardcoded a couple hashes in hard-to-find places, which
caused a unit test to fail. I just changed the hash (which covers UTXO
data which naturally will be different for us on account of our differently
formatted CTxOuts).

TODO: determine how Assumeutxo interacts with the fact that we don't save
out nonces in our normal UTXO serialization. Probably we will need to remove
the nonce from the CCoinStats serialization to avoid having inconsistent
hashes across nodes, since these hashes are now checked in assumeutxo?
This commit is contained in:
Andrew Poelstra 2021-06-23 23:36:26 +00:00
commit 61a241c5ca
17 changed files with 715 additions and 30 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
src/node/coinstats.cpp
View file

@ -57,6 +57,18 @@ static void ApplyHash(CCoinsStats& stats, MuHash3072& muhash, const uint256& has
muhash.Insert(MakeUCharSpan(ss));
}
//! Warning: be very careful when changing this! assumeutxo and UTXO snapshot
//! validation commitments are reliant on the hash constructed by this
//! function.
//!
//! If the construction of this hash is changed, it will invalidate
//! existing UTXO snapshots. This will not result in any kind of consensus
//! failure, but it will force clients that were expecting to make use of
//! assumeutxo to do traditional IBD instead.
//!
//! It is also possible, though very unlikely, that a change in this
//! construction could cause a previously invalid (and potentially malicious)
//! UTXO snapshot to be considered valid.
template <typename T>
static void ApplyStats(CCoinsStats& stats, T& hash_obj, const uint256& hash, const std::map<uint32_t, Coin>& outputs)
{