What a pain in the ass. This changes the `feature_cltv` functional test
to use the `MiniWallet`, an internal Pythonic wallet that produces
"signatures" consisting of several OP_NOPs in a row, so that this test
can be used when the wallet is disabled.
This means that the functions in feature_cltv which add a CLTV check and
change the locktime/sequence number no longer need to re-sign when they
change the txid, so they don't...HOWEVER, our Elements-specific
`feature_block_v4` test calls these functions with a real transaction
and depended on the re-signing behavior.
After several attempts at min-effort min-diff fixes I landed on this,
which simply sets the locktime at transaction creation and avoids having
to re-sign at all.
Also, I had to change the number of NOPs in the fake wallet code to make
a vsize assertion pass, presumably because of differences in Bitcoin/Elements
transaction serialization.
Adding an iteration cap to a fuzztest in this PR, not because it
has anything to do with this PR, but because this is where the
merge script happened to be when I was done investigating 100+
minute fuzzer runs.
Added a comment explaining the rationale for the iteration cap.
This is part of the "UTXO Set Statistics" project in Core, which aims
to make things like "checking coin supply" faster. This stuff, and
related things in coinstats.cpp, have always been broken for Elements
in the sense that we consider only explicit outputs and we ignore
assets (so everything just gets added together to get a meaningless
total). It probably wouldn't be too hard to restrict this to only
consider policyAsset, but it's out of scope for a rebase IMO.
Also, I think this situation is fine .. I don't understand the motivation
for this or why Core is merging this when they refuse to merge an address
index .. but I guess we'll see if there are users who care about this data
and who care about it being meaningful on Elements.
Also, apologies for the big diff -- there were some mechanical changes
to deal with CT amounts, but most of the changes related to the difference
in how fees are accounted for. While I'm not thrilled with this PR, its
functional test is really good! So I think what I eventually came up with
is internally consistent.
