ecaa786cc1 rpc: add signet_challenge field to getblockchaininfo and getmininginfo (Ash Manning)
Pull request description:
Signet challenges are currently only available via `getblocktemplate` RPC.
`getblockchaininfo` and `getmininginfo` both provide inadequate information to distinguish signets. Since these are the RPCs used to determine the current network, they should also provide the signet challenge for signets.
Test coverage is included in `test/functional/feature_signet.py`.
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK ecaa786cc1
achow101:
ACK ecaa786cc1
i-am-yuvi:
Concept ACK ecaa786cc1
Sjors:
ACK ecaa786cc1
zaidmstrr:
Tested ACK [ecaa786](ecaa786cc1)
Tree-SHA512: 9ccf4ae634ee74353a2a895efb881fdc62ae703a134ccd219da2cd6080c7d38319e689054584722457a7cc79004bd6022292a3b0b90eaab9f7003564665e1ea4
37a5c5d836 doc: update descriptors.md for getdescriptoractivity (James O'Beirne)
ee3ce6a4f4 test: rpc: add no address case for getdescriptoractivity (James O'Beirne)
811f76f3a5 rpc: add getdescriptoractivity (James O'Beirne)
25fe087de5 rpc: move-only: move ScriptPubKeyDoc to utils (James O'Beirne)
Pull request description:
The RPC command `scanblocks` provides a useful way to get a set of blockhashes that have activity relevant to a set of descriptors (`relevant_blocks`). However actually extracting the activity from those blocks is left as an exercise to the end user.
This process involves not only generating the (potentially ranged) set of scripts for the descriptor set on the client side (maybe via `deriveaddresses`), but then the user must retrieve each block's contents one-by-one using `getblock <hash>`, which is transmitted over a network link. And that's all before they perform the actual search over block content. There's even more work required to incorporate unconfirmed transactions.
This PR introduces an RPC `getdescriptoractivity` that [dovetails](https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/bitcoin-core-dev/2024-08-16#1046393;) with `scanblocks` output, handling the process described above. Users specify the blockhashes (perhaps from `relevant_blocks`) and a set of descriptors; they are then given all spend/receive activity in that set of blocks.
This is a very useful tool when implementing lightweight wallets that want neither to require a third-party indexer like electrs, nor the overhead of creating and managing watch-only wallets in Core. This allows Core to be more easily used in a "stateless" manner by wallets, with potentially many nodes interchangeably acting as backends.
### Example usage
```
% ./src/bitcoin-cli scanblocks start \
'["addr(bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t)"]' \
857263
{
"from_height": 857263,
"to_height": 858263,
"relevant_blocks": [
"00000000000000000002bc5cc78f5b0913a5230a8f4b0d5060bc9a60900a5a88",
"00000000000000000001c5291ed6a40c06d3db5c8fb738567654b24a14b24ecb"
],
"completed": true
}
% ./src/bitcoin-cli getdescriptoractivity \
'["00000000000000000002bc5cc78f5b0913a5230a8f4b0d5060bc9a60900a5a88", "00000000000000000001c5291ed6a40c06d3db5c8fb738567654b24a14b24ecb"]' \
'["addr(bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t)"]'
{
"activity": [
{
"type": "receive",
"amount": 0.00002900,
"blockhash": "00000000000000000002bc5cc78f5b0913a5230a8f4b0d5060bc9a60900a5a88",
"height": 857907,
"txid": "c9d34f202c1f66d80cae76f305350f5fdde910b97cf6ae6bf79f5bcf2a337d06",
"vout": 254,
"output_spk": {
"asm": "1 7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"desc": "rawtr(7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b)#yewcd80j",
"hex": "51207e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"address": "bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t",
"type": "witness_v1_taproot"
}
},
{
"type": "spend",
"amount": 0.00002900,
"blockhash": "00000000000000000001c5291ed6a40c06d3db5c8fb738567654b24a14b24ecb",
"height": 858260,
"spend_txid": "7f61d1b248d4ee46376f9c6df272f63fbb0c17039381fb23ca5d90473b823c36",
"spend_vin": 0,
"prevout_txid": "c9d34f202c1f66d80cae76f305350f5fdde910b97cf6ae6bf79f5bcf2a337d06",
"prevout_vout": 254,
"prevout_spk": {
"asm": "1 7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"desc": "rawtr(7e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b)#yewcd80j",
"hex": "51207e02f613a8d427f5f55ff62bddc47ccfb394953e57fdcb9a8add58af3124698b",
"address": "bc1p0cp0vyag6snlta2l7c4am3rue7eef9f72l7uhx52m4v27vfydx9s8tfs7t",
"type": "witness_v1_taproot"
}
}
]
}
```
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
reACK 37a5c5d836
achow101:
ACK 37a5c5d836
tdb3:
Code review and light retest ACK 37a5c5d836
rkrux:
re-ACK 37a5c5d836
Tree-SHA512: 04aa51e329c6c2ed72464b9886281d5ebd7511a8a8e184ea81249033a4dad535a12829b1010afc2da79b344ea8b5ab8ed47e426d0bf2eb78ab395d20b1da8dbb
0bd53d913c test: add test for getchaintips behavior with invalid chains (Martin Zumsande)
ccd98ea4c8 test: cleanup rpc_getchaintips.py (Martin Zumsande)
f5149ddb9b validation: mark blocks building on an invalid block as BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD (Martin Zumsande)
783cb7337f validation: call RecalculateBestHeader in InvalidChainFound (Martin Zumsande)
9275e9689a rpc: call RecalculateBestHeader as part of reconsiderblock (Martin Zumsande)
a51e91783a validation: add RecalculateBestHeader() function (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
`m_best_header` (the most-work header not known to be on an invalid chain) can be wrong in the context of invalidation / reconsideration of blocks. This can happen naturally (a valid header is received and stored in our block tree db; when the full block arrives, it is found to be invalid) or triggered by the user with the `invalidateblock` / `reconsiderblock` rpc.
We don't currently use `m_best_header` for any critical things (see OP of #16974 for a list that still seems up-to-date), so it being wrong affects mostly rpcs.
This PR proposes to recalculate it if necessary by looping over the block index and finding the best header. It also suggest to mark headers between an invalidatetd block and the previous `m_best_header` as invalid, so they won't be considered in the recalculation.
It adds tests to `rpc_invalidateblock.py` and `rpc_getchaintips.py` that fail on master.
One alternative to this suggested in the past would be to introduce a continuous tracking of header tips (#12138).
While this might be more performant, it is also more complicated, and situations where we need this data are only be remotely triggerable by paying the cost of creating a valid PoW header for an invalid block.
Therefore I think it isn't necessary to optimise for performance here, plus the solution in this PR doesn't perform any extra steps in the normal node operation where no invalidated blocks are encountered.
Fixes #26245
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
reACK 0bd53d913c
achow101:
ACK 0bd53d913c
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK 0bd53d913c
Tree-SHA512: 23c2fc42d7c7bb4f9b4ba4949646b3d0031dd29ed15484e436afd66cd821ed48e0f16a1d02f45477b5d0d73a006f6e81a56b82d9721e0dee2e924219f528b445
4feaa28728 refactor: Rely on returned value of GetCoin instead of parameter (Lőrinc)
46dfbf169b refactor: Return optional of Coin in GetCoin (Lőrinc)
e31bfb26c2 refactor: Remove unrealistic simulation state (Lőrinc)
Pull request description:
While reviewing [the removal of the unreachable combinations from the Coin cache logic](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30673#discussion_r1721727681), we've noticed that the related tests often [reflect impossible states](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30673/files#r1740154464).
Browsing the Coin cache refactoring history revealed that migrating `bool GetCoin` to `optional<Coin> GetCoin` was [already proposed a few times before](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18746#issuecomment-842393167).
This refactor makes certain invalid states impossible, reducing the possibility of errors and making the code easier to understand. This will let us remove test code that exercises the impossible states as well.
The PR is done in multiple small steps, first swapping the new `optional` return value, slowly strangling out the usages of the return parameter, followed by the removal of the parameter.
Most of the invalid test states were still kept, except for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30673/files#r1748087322, where the new design prohibits invalid usage and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30673/files#r1749350258 was just marked with a TODO, will be removed in a follow-up PR.
ACKs for top commit:
andrewtoth:
re-ACK 4feaa28728
achow101:
ACK 4feaa28728
laanwj:
Code review ACK 4feaa28728
theStack:
Code-review ACK 4feaa28728
Tree-SHA512: 818d60b2e97f58c489a61120fe761fb67a08dffbefe7a3fce712d362fc9eb8c2cced23074f1bec55fe71c616a3561b5a8737919ad6ffb2635467ec4711683df7
The current order is incorrect:
```bash
./build/src/bitcoin-cli loadtxoutset -rpcclienttimeout=0 utxo-840000.dat
error code: -1
error message:
loadtxoutset "path"
```
The waitforblock RPC method takes a hash argument and waits for that specific block. The waitfornewblock waits for any new block. This commit fixes the documentation.
This avoids low-level log errors that are supposed to only occur when
there is an actual problem with the block on disk missing unexpectedly,
but not in the case where the block and/or undo data are expected not to be there.
It changes behavior such that in the first case (block index indicates
data is available but retrieving it fails) an error is thrown.
It also adjusts a functional tests that tried to simulate not
having undo data (but having block data) by deleting the undo file.
This situation should occur reality because block and undo data are pruned together.
Instead, test this situation with a block that hasn't been connected.
This improves the error message of the getblock and getblockstats rpc and prevents calls to
ReadRawBlockFromDisk(), which are unnecessary if we know
from the header nStatus field that the block is not available.
992f83bb6f test: add coverage for assumeUTXO honest peers disconnection (furszy)
6d5812e5c8 assumeUTXO: fix peers disconnection during sync (furszy)
Pull request description:
Because AssumeUTXO nodes prioritize tip synchronization, they relay their local
address through the network before completing the background chain sync.
This, combined with the advertising of full-node service (`NODE_NETWORK`), can
result in an honest peer in IBD connecting to the AssumeUTXO node (while syncing)
and requesting an historical block the node does not have. This behavior leads to
an abrupt disconnection due to perceived unresponsiveness from the AssumeUTXO
node.
This lack of response occurs because nodes ignore `getdata` requests when they do
not have the block data available (further discussion can be found in #30385).
Fix this by refraining from signaling full-node service support while the
background chain is being synced. During this period, the node will only
signal `NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED` support. Then, full-node (`NODE_NETWORK`)
support will be re-enabled once the background chain sync is completed.
Thanks mzumsande for a post-#30385 convo too.
Testing notes:
Just cherry-pick the second commit (bb08c22) on master.
It will fail there, due to the IBD node requesting historical blocks to the snapshot
node - which is bad because the snapshot node will ignore the requests and
stall + disconnect after some time.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 992f83bb6f
naumenkogs:
ACK 992f83bb6f
mzumsande:
ACK 992f83bb6f
Tree-SHA512: fef525d1cf3200c2dd89a346be9c82d77f2e28ddaaea1f490a435e180d1a47a371cadea508349777d740ab56e94be536ad8f7d61cc81f6550c58b609b3779ed3
Because AssumeUTXO nodes prioritize tip synchronization, they relay their local
address through the network before completing the background chain sync.
This, combined with the advertising of full-node service (NODE_NETWORK), can
result in an honest peer in IBD connecting to the AssumeUTXO node (while syncing)
and requesting an historical block the node does not have. This behavior leads to
an abrupt disconnection due to perceived unresponsiveness (lack of response)
from the AssumeUTXO node.
This lack of response occurs because nodes ignore getdata requests when they do
not have the block data available (further discussion can be found in PR 30385).
Fix this by refraining from signaling full-node service support while the
background chain is being synced. During this period, the node will only
signal 'NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED' support. Then, full-node ('NODE_NETWORK')
support will be re-enabled once the background chain sync is completed.
94b0adcc37 rpc, refactor: Prevent potential race conditions in dumptxoutset (Fabian Jahr)
e868a6e070 doc: Improve assumeutxo guide and add more docs/comments (Fabian Jahr)
b29c21fc92 assumeutxo: Remove devtools/utxo_snapshot.sh (Fabian Jahr)
20a1c77aa7 contrib: Remove test_utxo_snapshots.sh (Fabian Jahr)
8426850352 test: Test for dumptxoutset at specific height (Fabian Jahr)
993cafe7e4 RPC: Add type parameter to dumptxoutset (Fabian Jahr)
fccf4f91d2 RPC: Extract ReconsiderBlock helper (Fabian Jahr)
446ce51c21 RPC: Extract InvalidateBlock helper (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
This adds a height parameter to the `dumptxoutset` RPC. This internalizes the workflow that was previously done by scripts: roll back the chain to the height we actually want the snapshot from, create the snapshot, roll forward to the real tip again.
The nice thing about internalizing this functionality is that we can write tests for the code and it gives us more options to make the functionality robust. The shell scripts we have so far will be more cumbersome to maintain in the long run, especially since we will only notice later when we have broken them. I think it's safe to remove these `test_utxo_snapshots.sh` as well when we have this option in `dumptxoutset` because we have also added some good additional functional test coverage for this functionality.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 94b0adcc37
achow101:
ACK 94b0adcc37
mzumsande:
ACK 94b0adcc37
pablomartin4btc:
re-ACK 94b0adcc37
Tree-SHA512: a4c9af5f687d1ca7bfb579a36f363882823386b5fa80c05de531b05a2782b5da6ff5baf3ada4bca8f32f63975d86f1948175abed9affe51fc958472b5f838dab
The following bitcoind parameters / RPC calls missed the "testnet4"
network string:
- `-chain=` parameter
- `getblockchaininfo` RPC, "chain" result
- `getmininginfo` RPC, "chain" result
fa5755b0a8 doc: rpc: Use "output script" consistently (2/2) (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Small follow-up to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30408 to fixup the RPCs that were forgotten.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
lgtm ACK fa5755b0a8
Tree-SHA512: f1fc0aabb59017da216d6fe0f08a2274336d04db332ad6ce3d9608cd6f03667be1c76423f24a489ac8e7d536011a129dca752ab64b4621b7bc1d4d53f68602e4
2e86f2b201 rpc: fix maybe-uninitialized compile warning in getchaintxstats (Michael Dietz)
Pull request description:
This resolves the compiler warning about potential uninitialized use of window_tx_count introduced in fa2dada.
The warning:
```
CXX rpc/libbitcoin_node_a-blockchain.o
rpc/blockchain.cpp: In function ‘getchaintxstats()::<lambda(const RPCHelpMan&, const JSONRPCRequest&)>’:
rpc/blockchain.cpp:1742:38: warning: ‘*(std::_Optional_payload_base<unsigned int>::_Storage<unsigned int, true>*)((char*)&window_tx_count + offsetof(const std::optional<unsigned int>,std::optional<unsigned int>::<unnamed>.std::_Optional_base<unsigned int, true, true>::<unnamed>)).std::_Optional_payload_base<unsigned int>::_Storage<unsigned int, true>::_M_value’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
1742 | ret.pushKV("txrate", double(*window_tx_count) / nTimeDiff);
|
```
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
lgtm ACK 2e86f2b201
theStack:
ACK 2e86f2b201
tdb3:
ACK 2e86f2b201
Tree-SHA512: c087e8f1cd68dd8df734a8400d30a95abe57ebd56cd53aef4230e425b33a23aa55b3af42abfd162e3be8c937a4c27e56abb70a4fedb10e2df64d52d577e0f262
17845e7f21 rpc: add utxo's blockhash and number of confirmations to scantxoutset output (Luis Schwab)
Pull request description:
This PR resolves#30478 by adding two fields to the `scantxoutset` RPC:
- blockhash: the blockhash that an UTXO was created
- confirmations: the number of confirmations an UTXO has relative to the chaintip.
The rationale for the first field is that a blockhash is a much more reliable identifier than the height:
> When using the scantxoutset RPC, the current behaviour is to show the block height of the UTXO. This is not optimal, as block height is ambiguous, especially in the case of a block reorganization happening at the same instant of the query. In this case, an UTXO that does not exist would be assumed to exist, unless the chain's tip hash is recorded before the scan, and make sure it still exists after, as per https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/895#issuecomment-1475766797 comment by evanlinjin.
The second one was suggested by maflcko, and I agree it's useful for human users:
> While touching this, another thing to add could be the number of confirmations? I understand that this wouldn't help machine consumers of the interface, but human callers may find it useful?
This will yield an RPC output like so:
```diff
bitcoin-cli scantxoutset start "[\"addr(bc1q5q9344vdyjkcgv79ve3tldz4jmx4lf7knmnx6r)\"]"
{
"success": true,
"txouts": 185259116,
"height": 853622,
"bestblock": "00000000000000000002e97d9be8f0ddf31829cf873061b938c10b0f80f708b2",
"unspents": [
{
"txid": "fae435084345fe26e464994aebc6544875bca0b897bf4ce52a65901ae28ace92",
"vout": 0,
"scriptPubKey": "0014a00b1ad58d24ad8433c56662bfb45596cd5fa7d6",
"desc": "addr(bc1q5q9344vdyjkcgv79ve3tldz4jmx4lf7knmnx6r)#smk4xmt7",
"amount": 0.00091190,
"coinbase": false,
"height": 852741,
+ "blockhash": "00000000000000000002eefe7e7db44d5619c3dace4c65f3fdcd2913d4945c13",
+ "confirmations": 882
}
],
"total_amount": 0.00091190
}
```
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK 17845e7f21
Eunovo:
ACK 17845e7f21
tdb3:
ACK 17845e7f21
Tree-SHA512: 02366d0004e5d547522115ef0efe6794a35978db53dda12c675cfae38197bf43f0bf89ca99a3d79e3d2cff95186015fe1ab764abb8ab82bda440ae9302ad973b
29eafd5733 rpc: doc: use "output script" terminology consistently in "asm"/"hex" results (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
The wording "public key script" was likely chosen as a human-readable form of the technical term `scriptPubKey`, but it doesn't seem to be really widespread. Replace it by the more (probably most?) common term "output script" instead. Note that the argument for the `decodescript` RPC is not necessarily an output script (it could e.g. be also a redeem script), so in this case we just stay generic and use "script".
See also the draft BIP "Terminology for Transaction Components" (https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/blob/2022-04-tx-terminology/bip-tx-terminology.mediawiki) from murchandamus which suggests to use "output script" as well.
Affects the help text of the following RPCs:
- decodepsbt
- decoderawtransaction
- decodescript
- getblock (if verbosity=3)
- getrawtransaction (if verbosity=2,3)
- gettxout
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
ACK 29eafd5733
achow101:
ACK 29eafd5733
BrandonOdiwuor:
ACK 29eafd5733
tdb3:
ACK 29eafd5733
Tree-SHA512: 62eb92d42bc44e36dc3090df7b248a123868a74af253d2046de02086e688bf6ff98307b927ba2fee3d599f85e073aeb8eca90ed15105ca63b648b6796cfa340b
8789dc8f31 doc: Add note to getblockfrompeer on missing undo data (Fabian Jahr)
4a1975008b rpc: Make pruneheight also reflect undo data presence (Fabian Jahr)
96b4facc91 refactor, blockstorage: Generalize GetFirstStoredBlock (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
The function `GetFirstStoredBlock()` helps us find the first block for which we have data. So far this function only looked for a block with `BLOCK_HAVE_DATA`. However, this doesn't mean that we also have the undo data of that block, and undo data might be required for what a user would like to do with those blocks. One example of how this might happen is if some blocks were fetched using the `getblockfrompeer` RPC. Blocks fetched from a peer will have data but no undo data.
The first commit here allows `GetFirstStoredBlock()` to check for undo data as well by passing a parameter. This alone is useful for #29553 and I would use it there.
In the second commit I am applying the undo check to the RPCs that report `pruneheight` to the user. I find this much more intuitive because I think the user expects to be able to do all operations on blocks up until the `pruneheight` but that is not the case if undo data is missing. I personally ran into this once before and now again when testing for assumeutxo when I had used `getblockfrompeer`. The following commit adds test coverage for this change of behavior.
The last commit adds a note in the docs of `getblockfrompeer` that undo data will not be available.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 8789dc8f31
furszy:
Code review ACK 8789dc8f31.
stickies-v:
ACK 8789dc8f31
Tree-SHA512: 90ae8bdd07a496ade579aa25240609c61c9ed173ad38d30533f6c631fe674e5a41727478ade69ca4b71a571ad94c9da4b33ebba6b5d8821109313c2de3bdfb3d
The wording "public key script" was likely chosen as a human-readable form of
the technical term `scriptPubKey`, but it doesn't seem to be really widespread.
Replace it by the more common term "output script" instead. Note that the
argument for the `decodescript` RPC is not necessarily an output script (it
could e.g. be also a redeem script), so in this case we just stay generic and
use "script".
See also the draft BIP "Terminology for Transaction Components"
(https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/blob/2022-04-tx-terminology/bip-tx-terminology.mediawiki)
which suggests to use "output script" as well.
Affects the help text of the following RPCs:
- decodepsbt
- decoderawtransaction
- decodescript
- getblock (if verbosity=3)
- getrawtransaction (if verbosity=2,3)
- gettxout
2342b46c45 test: Add coverage for getchaintxstats in assumeutxo context (Fabian Jahr)
faf2a6750b rpc: Reorder getchaintxstats output (MarcoFalke)
fa2dada0c9 rpc: Avoid getchaintxstats invalid results (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The `getchaintxstats` RPC reply during AU background download may return non-zero, but invalid, values for `window_tx_count` and `txrate`.
For example, `txcount` may be zero for a to-be-downloaded block, but may be non-zero for an ancestor block which is already downloaded. Thus, the values returned may be negative (and cause intermediate integer sanitizer violations).
Also, `txcount` may be accurate for the snapshot base block, or a descendant of it. However it may be zero for an ancestor block that still needs to be downloaded. Thus, the values returned may be positive, but wrong.
Fix all issues by skipping the returned value if either `txcount` is unset (equal to zero).
Also, skip `txcount` in the returned value, if it is unset (equal to zero).
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29328
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK 2342b46c45
achow101:
ACK 2342b46c45
mzumsande:
ACK 2342b46c45
Tree-SHA512: 931cecc40ee5dc0f96be728db7eb297155f8343076cd29c8b8c050c99fd1d568b80f54c9459a34ca7a9489c2474c729796d00eeb1934d6a9f7b4d6a53e3ec430
