And under the hood suppoert single transactions
in AcceptPackage. This simplifies user experience
and paves the way for reducing number of codepaths
for transaction acceptance in the future.
Co-Authored-By: instagibbs <gsanders87@gmail.com>
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.
9365baa489 test: add conflicting topology test case (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
We want to ensure that even if topologies
that are acceptable are relaxed, like
removing package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents, that we don't end up accepting packages we shouldn't.
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
reACK 9365baa489
rkrux:
reACK [9365baa](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30066/commits/9365baa489e123d9bcaf986e4311d3fa3f1e3f88)
Tree-SHA512: d58661064ca099ac0447c331a5020c74c0cdfe24259aa875592805bbd63de1bf23aa7ced9ff485fef90dc0602fcb997e631aaf1aa2e9805d2cf5f0e5c9b2f0e2
We want to ensure that even if topologies
that are acceptable are relaxed, like
removing package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents,
that we don't end up accepting packages we shouldn't.
dd8fa86193 test: use tagged ephemeral MiniWallet instance in fill_mempool (Sebastian Falbesoner)
b2037ad4ae test: add MiniWallet tagging support to avoid UTXO mixing (Sebastian Falbesoner)
c8e6d08236 test: refactor: eliminate COINBASE_MATURITY magic number in fill_mempool (Sebastian Falbesoner)
4f347140b1 test: refactor: move fill_mempool to new module mempool_util (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Different MiniWallet instances using the same mode (either ADDRESS_OP_TRUE, RAW_OP_TRUE or RAW_P2PK) currently always create and spend UTXOs with identical output scripts, which can cause unintentional tx dependencies (see e.g. the discussion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29827#discussion_r1565443465). In order to avoid mixing of UTXOs between instances, this PR introduces the possibility to provide a MiniWallet tag name, that is used to derive a different internal key for the taproot construction, leading to a different P2TR output script. Note that since we use script-path spending and only the key-path is changed here, no changes in the MiniWallet spending logic are needed.
The new tagging option is then used in the `fill_mempool` helper to create an ephemeral wallet for the filling txs, as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29827#discussion_r1565964264. To avoid circular dependencies, `fill_mempool` is moved to a new module `mempool_util.py` first.
I'm still not sure if a generic word like "tag" is the right term for what this tries to achieve, happy to pick up better suggestions. Also, maybe passing a tag name is overkill and a boolean flag like "random_output_script" is sufficient?
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
ACK dd8fa86193
achow101:
ACK dd8fa86193
rkrux:
tACK [dd8fa86](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29939/commits/dd8fa861939d5b8bdd844ad7cab015d08533a91a)
brunoerg:
utACK dd8fa86193
Tree-SHA512: 5ef3558c3ef5ac32cfa79c8f751972ca6bceaa332cd7daac7e93412a88e30dec472cb041c0845b04abf8a317036d31ebddfc3234e609ed442417894c2bdeeac9
78e52f663f doc: rpc: fix submitpackage examples (stickies-v)
1a875d4049 rpc: update min package size error message in submitpackage (stickies-v)
f9ece258aa doc: rpc: submitpackage takes sorted array (stickies-v)
17f74512f0 test: add bounds checking for submitpackage RPC (stickies-v)
Pull request description:
`submitpackage` requires the package to be topologically sorted with the child being the last element in the array, but this is not documented in the RPC method or the error messages.
Also sneaking in some other minor improvements that I found while going through the code:
- Informing the user that `package` needs to be an array of length between `1` and `MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT` is confusing when `IsChildWithPackage()` requires that the package size >= 2. Remove this check to avoid code duplication and sending a confusing error message.
- fixups to the `submitpackage` examples
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK 78e52f663f
instagibbs:
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29292/commits/78e52f663f3e3ac86260b913dad777fd7218f210
achow101:
ACK 78e52f663f
glozow:
utACK 78e52f663f
Tree-SHA512: a8845621bb1cbf784167fc7c82cb8ceb105868b65b26d3465f072d1c04ef3699e85a21a524ade805d423bcecbc34f7d5bff12f2c21cbd902ae1fb154193ebdc9
38f70ba6ac RPC: Add maxfeerate and maxburnamount args to submitpackage (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Resolves https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28949
I couldn't manage to do it very cleanly outside of (sub)package evaluation itself, since it would change the current interface very heavily. Instead I threaded through the max fee argument and used that directly via ATMPArgs. From that perspective, this is somewhat a reversion from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19339. In a post-cluster mempool world, these checks could be consolidated to right after the given (ancestor) package is linearized/chunked, by just checking the feerate of the top chunk and rejecting the submission entirely if the top chunk is too high.
The implication here is that subpackages can be submitted to the mempool prior to hitting this new fee-based error condition.
ACKs for top commit:
ismaelsadeeq:
Re-ACK 38f70ba6ac👍🏾
glozow:
ACK 38f70ba6ac with some non-blocking nits
murchandamus:
LGTM, code review ACK 38f70ba6ac
Tree-SHA512: 38212aa9de25730944cee58b0806a3d37097e42719af8dd7de91ce86bb5d9770b6f7c37354bf418bd8ba571c52947da1dcdbb968bf429dd1dbdf8715315af18f
And thread the feerate value through ProcessNewPackage to
reject individual transactions that exceed the given
feerate. This allows subpackage processing, and is
compatible with future package RBF work.
Behavior prior to this commit allows some transactions to
enter into the local mempool but not be reported to the user
when encountering a PackageValidationResult::PCKG_TX result.
This is further compounded with the fact that any transactions
submitted to the mempool during this call would also not be
relayed to peers, resulting in unexpected behavior.
Fix this by, if encountering a package error, reporting all
wtxids, along with a new error field, and broadcasting every
transaction that was found in the mempool after submission.
Note that this also changes fees and vsize to optional,
which should also remove an issue with other-wtxid cases.
Duplicates of normal transactions would be found by looking for
conflicting inputs, but this doesn't catch identical empty transactions.
These wouldn't be valid but exiting early is good and AcceptPackage's
result sanity checks assume non-duplicate transactions.
