This commit adds signet support, which is a little bit silly/redundant for us :)
Was a surprisingly easy merge to handle, and hopefully in future Core is more
mindful of signed blocks when they are changing code architecture.
I had to change a couple lines of src/signet.cpp to add blank assets to the
CTxOuts and to find transaction input scriptWitnesses. No need to add any
other tx witness data (and the CAsset()s that I did add to make things compile
won't be used..) because signet will always have g_con_elementsmode off.
I really like this PR, but it wound up being pretty nontrivial to merge.
The crux is that it pulls PSBT signing logic into scriptpubkey manager,
which is where it belongs, but for us this means reasoning about pegins
inside script/sign.cpp.
However, sign.cpp is part of libbitcoin_common, which does not include
anything for reasoning about PoW or RPC (lol) or anything heavy about
that. This means that some pegin validation had to remain split between
the wallet/rpc layer and sign.cpp. I added a new file script/pegins.cpp
which has the (one) method we actually need in sign.cpp.
Aside from that, this diff is very large but is mostly just moving our
code changes to wallet/psbtwallet.* into wallet/wallet.* where those
functions now live. As far as review, it's probably not worthwhile to
spend too much too much time on this since it's going to be change
again in #16528 and others. The test coverage is pretty extensive.
FIXME: we disable standardness checks for the non-PAK node in the PAK tests.
This is because of a bug in Elements which causes non-PAK nodes to reject
pegouts for standardness reasons. Need to fix it after the rebase.
Our policy checks for non-standard inputs depend only on the non-witness
portion of a transaction: we look up the scriptPubKey of the input being
spent from our UTXO set (which is covered by the input txid), and the p2sh
checks only rely on the scriptSig portion of the input.
Consequently it's safe to add txids of transactions that fail these checks to
the reject filter, as the witness is irrelevant to the failure. This is helpful
for any situation where we might request the transaction again via txid (either
from txid-relay peers, or if we might fetch the transaction via txid due to
parent-fetching of orphans).
Further, in preparation for future witness versions being deployed on the
network, ensure that WITNESS_UNKNOWN transactions are rejected in
AreInputsStandard(), so that transactions spending v1 (or greater) witness
outputs will fall into this category of having their txid added to the reject
filter.
0a4f1422cd Further improve comments around recentRejects (Suhas Daftuar)
0e20cfedb7 Disconnect peers sending wtxidrelay message after VERACK (Suhas Daftuar)
cacd85209e test: Use wtxid relay generally in functional tests (Fabian Jahr)
8d8099e97a test: Add tests for wtxid tx relay in segwit test (Fabian Jahr)
9a5392fdf6 test: Update test framework p2p protocol version to 70016 (Fabian Jahr)
dd78d1d641 Rename AddInventoryKnown() to AddKnownTx() (Suhas Daftuar)
4eb515574e Make TX_WITNESS_STRIPPED its own rejection reason (Suhas Daftuar)
97141ca442 Delay getdata requests from peers using txid-based relay (Suhas Daftuar)
46d78d47de Add p2p message "wtxidrelay" (Suhas Daftuar)
2d282e0cba ignore non-wtxidrelay compliant invs (Anthony Towns)
ac88e2eb61 Add support for tx-relay via wtxid (Suhas Daftuar)
8e68fc246d Add wtxids to recentRejects instead of txids (Suhas Daftuar)
144c385820 Add wtxids of confirmed transactions to bloom filter (Suhas Daftuar)
85c78d54af Add wtxid-index to orphan map (Suhas Daftuar)
08b39955ec Add a wtxid-index to mapRelay (Suhas Daftuar)
60f0acda71 Just pass a hash to AddInventoryKnown (Suhas Daftuar)
c7eb6b4f1f Add wtxid to mempool unbroadcast tracking (Amiti Uttarwar)
2b4b90aa8f Add a wtxid-index to the mempool (Suhas Daftuar)
Pull request description:
Using txids (a transaction's hash, without witness) for transaction relay is problematic, post-segwit -- if a peer gives us a segwit transaction that fails policy checks, it could be because the txid associated with the transaction is definitely unacceptable to our node (regardless of the witness), or it could be that the transaction was malleated and with a different witness, the txid could be accepted to our mempool.
We have a bloom filter of recently rejected transactions, whose purpose is to help us avoid redownloading and revalidating transactions that fail to be accepted, but because of this potential for witness malleability to interfere with relay of valid transactions, we do not use the filter for segwit transactions. This issue is discussed at some length in #8279. The effect of this is that whenever a segwit transaction that fails policy checks is relayed, a node would download that transaction from every peer announcing it, because it has no way presently to cache failure. Historically this hasn't been a big problem, but if/when policy for accepting segwit transactions were to change (eg taproot, or any other change), we could expect older nodes talking to newer nodes to be wasting bandwidth because of this.
As discussed in that issue, switching to wtxid-based relay solves this problem -- by using an identifier for a transaction that commits to all the data in our relay protocol, we can be certain if a transaction that a peer is announcing is one that we've already tried to process, or if it's something new. This PR introduces support for wtxid-based relay with peers that support it (and remains backwards compatible with peers that use txids for relay, of course).
Apart from code correctness, one issue to be aware of is that by downloading from old and new peers alike, we should expect there to be some bandwidth wasted, because sometimes we might download the same transaction via txid-relay as well as wtxid-relay. The last commit in this PR implements a heuristic I want to analyze, which is to just delay relay from txid-relay peers by 2 seconds, if we have at least 1 wtxid-based peer. I've just started running a couple nodes with this heuristic so I can measure how well it works, but I'm open to other ideas for minimizing that issue. In the long run, I think this will be essentially a non-issue, so I don't think it's too big a concern, we just need to bite the bullet and deal with it during upgrade.
Finally, this proposal would need a simple BIP describing the changes, which I haven't yet drafted. However, review and testing of this code in the interim would be welcome.
To do items:
- [x] Write BIP explaining the spec here (1 new p2p message for negotiating wtxid-based relay, along with a new INV type)
- [ ] Measure and evaluate a heuristic for minimizing how often a node downloads the same transaction twice, when connected to old and new nodes.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
utACK 0a4f1422cd
laanwj:
utACK 0a4f1422cd
Tree-SHA512: d8eb8f0688cf0cbe9507bf738e143edab1f595551fdfeddc2b6734686ea26e7f156b6bfde38bad8bbbe8bec1857c7223e1687f8f018de7463dde8ecaa8f450df
Previously, TX_WITNESS_MUTATED could be returned during transaction validation
for either transactions that had a witness that was non-standard, or for
transactions that had no witness but were invalid due to segwit validation
rules.
However, for txid/wtxid-relay considerations, net_processing distinguishes the
witness stripped case separately, because it affects whether a wtxid should be
able to be added to the reject filter. It is safe to add the wtxid of a
witness-mutated transaction to the filter (as that wtxid shouldn't collide with
the txid, and hence it wouldn't interfere with transaction relay from
txid-relay peers), but it is not safe to add the wtxid (== txid) of a
witness-stripped transaction to the filter, because that would interfere with
relay of another transaction with the same txid (but different wtxid) when
relaying from txid-relay peers.
Also updates the comment explaining this logic, and explaining that we can get
rid of this complexity once there's a sufficient deployment of wtxid-relaying
peers on the network.
Dmitry pointed out this potential overflow. They can't really happen
because of the `CheckTransaction` check on explicit amounts that
happens earlier in the verification chain. But it's a good idea to
add the check here as well so that a potential relaxing of other rules
cannot accidentally introduce an overflow risk.
Change comment from `The reason is that if the number of hashes in the list at a given time
is odd`, to ` The reason is that if the number of hashes in the list at a given level
is odd` (to be a bit more precise)
