429ec1aaaa refactor: Rename CTransaction::nVersion to version (Ava Chow)
27e70f1f5b consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t (Ava Chow)
Pull request description:
Given that the use of a transaction's nVersion is always as an unsigned int, it doesn't make sense to store it as signed and then cast it to unsigned everywhere it is used and displayed.
Since a few alternative implementations have recently been revealed to have made an error with this signedness that would have resulted in consensus failure, I think it makes sense for us to just make this always unsigned to make it clear that the version is treated as unsigned. This would also help us avoid future potential issues with signedness of this value.
I believe that this is safe and does not actually change what transactions would or would not be considered both standard and consensus valid. Within consensus, the only use of the version in consensus is in BIP68 validation which was already casting it to uint32_t. Within policy, although it is used as a signed int for the transaction version number check, I do not think that this change would change standardness. Standard transactions are limited to the range [1, 2]. Negative numbers would have fallen under the < 1 condition, but by making it unsigned, they are still non-standard under the > 2 condition.
Unsigned and signed ints are serialized and unserialized the same way so there is no change in serialization.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
ACK 429ec1aaaa 🐿
glozow:
ACK 429ec1aaaa
shaavan:
ACK 429ec1aaaa💯
Tree-SHA512: 0bcd92a245d7d16c3665d2d4e815a4ef28207ad4a1fb46c6f0203cdafeab1b82c4e95e4bdce7805d80a4f4a46074f6542abad708e970550d38a00d759e3dcef1
In order to ensure that the change of nVersion to a uint32_t in the
previous commit has no effect, rename nVersion to version in this commit
so that reviewers can easily spot if a spot was missed or if there is a
check somewhere whose semantics have changed.
CTxDestination is really our internal representation of an address and
doesn't really have anything to do with standard script types, so move
them to their own file.
Since the kernel library no longer depends on the system file, move it
to the common library instead in accordance to the diagram in
doc/design/libraries.md.
75db62ba4c refactor: Move calculation logic out from `CheckSequenceLocksAtTip()` (Hennadii Stepanov)
3bc434f459 refactor: Add `CalculateLockPointsAtTip()` function (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR is follow up for bitcoin/bitcoin#22677 and bitcoin/bitcoin#23683.
On master (013daed9ac) it is not obvious that `CheckSequenceLocksAtTip()` function can modify its `LockPoints* lp` parameter which leads to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22677#discussion_r762040101.
This PR:
- separates the lockpoint calculate logic from `CheckSequenceLocksAtTip()` function into a new `CalculateLockPointsAtTip()` one
- cleans up the `CheckSequenceLocksAtTip()` function interface
- makes code easier to reason about (hopefully)
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 75db62ba4c
stickies-v:
re-ACK 75db62b
Tree-SHA512: 072c3fd9cd1e1b0e0bfc8960a67b01c80a9f16d6778f374b6944ade03a020415ce8b8ab2593b0f5e787059c8cf90af798290b4c826785d41955092f6e12e7486
36c201feb7 remove CBlockIndex copy construction (James O'Beirne)
Pull request description:
Copy construction of CBlockIndex objects is a footgun because of the
wide use of equality-by-pointer comparison in the code base. There are
also potential lifetime confusions of using copied instances, since
there are recursive pointer members (e.g. pprev).
(See also https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24008#discussion_r891949166)
We can't just delete the copy constructors because they are used for
derived classes (CDiskBlockIndex), so we mark them protected.
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK 36c201feb7 - code review only
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 36c201feb7 🏻
Tree-SHA512: b1cf9a1cb992464a4377dad609713eea63cc099435df374e4553bfe62d362a4eb5e3c6c6649177832f38c0905b23841caf9d62196cef8e3084bfea0bfc26374b
Copy construction of CBlockIndex objects is a footgun because of the
wide use of equality-by-pointer comparison in the code base. There are
also potential lifetime confusions of using copied instances, since
there are recursive pointer references (e.g. pprev).
We can't just delete the copy constructors because they are used for
derived classes (CDiskBlockIndex), so we mark them protected.
Delete move constructors and declare the destructor to satisfy the
"rule of 5."
