96da68a38f qa: functional test a transaction running into the legacy sigop limit (Antoine Poinsot)
367147954d qa: unit test standardness of inputs packed with legacy sigops (Antoine Poinsot)
5863315e33 policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard. (Antoine Poinsot)
Pull request description:
The Consensus Cleanup soft fork proposal includes a limit on the number of legacy signature
operations potentially executed when validating a transaction. If this change is to be implemented
here and activated by Bitcoin users in the future, we should make transactions that are not valid
according to the new rules non-standard first because it would otherwise be a trivial DoS to
potentially unupgraded miners after the soft fork activates.
ML post: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/49dyqqkf5NqGlGdinp6SELIoxzE_ONh3UIj6-EB8S804Id5yROq-b1uGK8DUru66eIlWuhb5R3nhRRutwuYjemiuOOBS2FQ4KWDnEh0wLuA=@protonmail.com/T/#u
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
reACK 96da68a38f
maflcko:
review ACK 96da68a38f🚋
achow101:
ACK 96da68a38f
glozow:
light code review ACK 96da68a38f, looks correct to me
Tree-SHA512: 106ffe62e48952affa31c5894a404a17a3b4ea8971815828166fba89069f757366129f7807205e8c6558beb75c6f67d8f9a41000be2f8cf95be3b1a02d87bfe9
The Consensus Cleanup soft fork proposal includes a limit on the number of legacy signature
operations potentially executed when validating a transaction. If this change is to be implemented
here and activated by Bitcoin users in the future, we should prevent the ability for someone to
broadcast a transaction through the p2p network that is not valid according to the new rules. This
is because if it was possible it would be a trivial DoS to potentially unupgraded miners after the
soft fork activates.
We do not know for sure whether users will activate the Consensus Cleanup. However if they do such
transactions must have been made non-standard long in advance, due to the time it takes for most
nodes on the network to upgrade. In addition this limit may only be run into by pathological
transactions which pad the Script with sigops but do not use actual signatures when spending, as
otherwise they would run into the standard transaction size limit.
a60f863d3e scripted-diff: Replace GenTxidVariant with GenTxid (marcofleon)
c8ba199598 Remove old GenTxid class (marcofleon)
072a198ea4 Convert remaining instances of GenTxid to GenTxidVariant (marcofleon)
1b528391c7 Convert `txrequest` to GenTxidVariant (marcofleon)
bde4579b07 Convert `txdownloadman_impl` to GenTxidVariant (marcofleon)
c876a892ec Replace GenTxid with Txid/Wtxid overloads in `txmempool` (marcofleon)
de858ce2be move-only: make GetInfo a private CTxMemPool member (stickies-v)
eee473d9f3 Convert `CompareInvMempoolOrder` to GenTxidVariant (marcofleon)
243553d590 refactor: replace get_iter_from_wtxid with GetIter(const Wtxid&) (stickies-v)
fcf92fd640 refactor: make CTxMemPool::GetIter strongly typed (marcofleon)
11d28f21bb Implement GenTxid as a variant (marcofleon)
Pull request description:
Part of the [type safety refactor](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32189).
This PR changes the GenTxid class to a variant, which holds both Txids and Wtxids. This provides compile-time type safety and eliminates the manual type check (bool m_is_wtxid). Variables that can be either a Txid or a Wtxid are now using the new GenTxid variant, instead of uint256.
ACKs for top commit:
w0xlt:
ACK a60f863d3e
dergoegge:
Code review ACK a60f863d3e
maflcko:
review ACK a60f863d3e🎽
theStack:
Code-review ACK a60f863d3e
Tree-SHA512: da9b73b7bdffee2eb9281a409205519ac330d3336094d17681896703fbca8099608782c9c85801e388e4d90af5af8abf1f34931f57bbbe6e9674d802d6066047
There is no way to report a close error from `AutoFile` destructor.
Such an error could be serious if the file has been written to because
it may mean the file is now corrupted (same as if write fails).
So, change all users of `AutoFile` that use it to write data to
explicitly close the file and handle a possible error.
Datacarrier output script sizes and output counts are now
uncapped by default.
To avoid introducing another startup argument, we modify the
OP_RETURN accounting to "budget" the spk sizes.
If a user has set a custom default, this results in that
budget being spent over the sum of all OP_RETURN outputs'
scripts in the transaction, no longer capping the number
of OP_RETURN outputs themselves. This should allow a
superset of current behavior while respecting the passed
argument in terms of total arbitrary data storage.
Co-authored-by: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Closes: #11800
Note: In certain rare edge cases, monotonically increasing estimates may
not be guaranteed. Specifically, given two targets N and M, where M > N,
if a sub-estimate for target N fails to return a valid fee rate, while
target M has valid fee rate for that sub-estimate, target M may result
in a higher fee rate estimate than target N.
See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11800#issuecomment-349697807
Historically, the headers have been bumped some time after a file has
been touched. Do it now to avoid having to touch them again in the
future for that reason.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
sed -i --regexp-extended 's;( 20[0-2][0-9])(-20[0-2][0-9])? The Bitcoin Core developers;\1-present The Bitcoin Core developers;g' $( git show --pretty="" --name-only HEAD~1 )
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
- This commit renamed coinbase_max_additional_weight to block_reserved_weight.
- Also clarify that the reservation is for block header, transaction count
and coinbase transaction.
3e0a992a3f doc: Clarify comments about endianness after #30526 (Ryan Ofsky)
Pull request description:
This is a documentation-only change following up on suggestions made in the #30526 review.
Motivation for this change is that I was recently reviewing #31583, which reminded me how confusing the arithmetic blob code was and made me want to write better comments.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 3e0a992a3f
TheCharlatan:
ACK 3e0a992a3f
Sjors:
ACK 3e0a992a3f
BrandonOdiwuor:
LGTM ACK 3e0a992a3f
Tree-SHA512: 90d5582a25a51fc406d83ca6b8c4e5e4d3aee828a0497f4b226b2024ff89e29b9b50d0ae8ddeac6abf2757fe78548d58cf3dd54df4b6d623f634a2106048091d
This is a documentation-only change following up on suggestions made in the
#30526 review.
Motivation for this change is that I was recently reviewing #31583, which
reminded me how confusing the arithmetic blob code was and made me want to
write better comments.
Also known as Ephemeral Dust.
We try to ensure that dust is spent in blocks by requiring:
- ephemeral dust tx is 0-fee
- ephemeral dust tx only has one dust output
- If the ephemeral dust transaction has a child,
the dust is spent by by that child.
0-fee requirement means there is no incentive to mine
a transaction which doesn't have a child bringing its
own fees for the transaction package.
Also, remove not needed and possibly redundant function name and class
names from the log string. Also, minimally reword the log messages.
Also, remove redundant trailing newlines from log messages, while
touching.
There is no need to compare the field to CLIENT_VERSION. Either the
format remains compatible and the value can be left unchanged, or it is
incompatible and the value needs to be increased to at least 289900+1.
Keep mentions of v3 in debug strings to help people who might not know
that TRUC is applied when version=3.
Also keep variable names in tests, as it is less verbose to keep v3 and v2.
94ed4fbf8e Add release note for size 2 package rbf (Greg Sanders)
afd52d8e63 doc: update package RBF comment (Greg Sanders)
6e3c4394cf mempool: Improve logging of replaced transactions (Greg Sanders)
d3466e4cc5 CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult: Check package rbf invariants (Greg Sanders)
316d7b63c9 Fuzz: pass mempool to CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult (Greg Sanders)
4d15bcf448 [test] package rbf (glozow)
dc21f61c72 [policy] package rbf (Suhas Daftuar)
5da3967815 PackageV3Checks: Relax assumptions (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Allows any 2 transaction package with no in-mempool ancestors to do package RBF when directly conflicting with other mempool clusters of size two or less.
Proposed validation steps:
1) If the transaction package is of size 1, legacy rbf rules apply.
2) Otherwise the transaction package consists of a (parent, child) pair with no other in-mempool ancestors (or descendants, obviously), so it is also going to create a cluster of size 2. If larger, fail.
3) The package rbf may not evict more than 100 transactions from the mempool(bip125 rule 5)
4) The package is a single chunk
5) Every directly conflicted mempool transaction is connected to at most 1 other in-mempool transaction (ie the cluster size of the conflict is at most 2).
6) Diagram check: We ensure that the replacement is strictly superior, improving the mempool
7) The total fee of the package, minus the total fee of what is being evicted, is at least the minrelayfee * size of the package (equivalent to bip125 rule 3 and 4)
Post-cluster mempool this will likely be expanded to general package rbf, but this is what we can safely support today.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 94ed4fbf8e
glozow:
reACK 94ed4fbf8e via range-diff
ismaelsadeeq:
re-ACK 94ed4fbf8e
theStack:
Code-review ACK 94ed4fbf8e
murchandamus:
utACK 94ed4fbf8e
Tree-SHA512: 9bd383e695964f362f147482bbf73b1e77c4d792bda2e91d7f30d74b3540a09146a5528baf86854a113005581e8c75f04737302517b7d5124296bd7a151e3992
Relax assumptions about in-mempool children of in-mempool
parents. With package RBF, we will allow a package of size
2 with conflicts on its parent and reconsider the parent
if its fee is insufficient on its own.
Consider:
TxA (in mempool) <- TxB (in mempool)
TxA (in mempool) <- TxB' (in package, conflicts with TxB) <-
TxC (in package)
If TxB' fails to RBF TxB due to insufficient feerate, the
package TxB' + TxC will be considered. PackageV3Checks
called on TxB' will see an in-mempool parent TxA, and
see the in-mempool child TxB. We cannot assume there is
no in-mempool sibling, rather detect it and fail normally.
Prior to package RBF, this would have failed on the first
conflict in package.
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.
154b2b2296 [fuzz] V3_MAX_VSIZE and effective ancestor/descendant size limits (glozow)
a29f1df289 [policy] restrict all v3 transactions to 10kvB (glozow)
d578e2e354 [policy] explicitly require non-v3 for CPFP carve out (glozow)
Pull request description:
Opening for discussion / conceptual review.
We like the idea of a smaller maximum transaction size because:
- It lowers potential replacement cost (i.e. harder to do Rule 3 pinning via gigantic transaction)
- They are easier to bin-pack in block template production
- They equate to a tighter memory limit in data structures that are bounded by a number of transactions (e.g. orphanage and vExtraTxnForCompact). For example, the current memory bounds for orphanage is 100KvB * 100 = 40MB, and guaranteeing 1 tx per peer would require reserving a pretty large space.
History for `MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT=100KvB` (copied from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29873#issuecomment-2115459510):
- 2010-09-13 In 3df62878c3 satoshi added a 100kB (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN/5 with MBS_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2) limit on new transactions in CreateTransaction()
- 2013-02-04 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2273 In gavin gave that constant a name, and made it apply to transaction relay as well
Lowering `MAX_STANDARD_TX_WEIGHT` for all txns is not being proposed, as there are existing apps/protocols that rely on large transactions. However, it's been brought up that we should consider this for TRUCs (which is especially designed to avoid Rule 3 pinning).
This reduction should be ok because using nVersion=3 isn't standard yet, so this wouldn't break somebody's existing use case. If we find that this is too small, we can always increase it later. Decreasing would be much more difficult.
~[Expected size of a commitment transaction](https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md#expected-weight-of-the-commitment-transaction) is within (900 + 172 * 483 + 224) / 4 = 21050vB~ EDIT: this is incorrect, but perhaps not something that should affect how we choose this number.
ACKs for top commit:
sdaftuar:
ACK 154b2b2296
achow101:
ACK 154b2b2296
instagibbs:
ACK 154b2b2296
t-bast:
ACK 154b2b2296
murchandamus:
crACK 154b2b2296
Tree-SHA512: 89392a460908a8ea9f547d90e00f5181de0eaa9d2c4f2766140a91294ade3229b3d181833cad9afc93a0d0e8c4b96ee2f5aeda7c50ad7e6f3a8320b9e0c5ae97
ffc674595c Replace remaining "520" magic numbers with MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Noticed these while reviewing BIPs yesterday.
It would be clearer and more future-proof to refer to their constant name.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK ffc674595c
sipa:
ACK ffc674595c
achow101:
ACK ffc674595c
glozow:
ACK ffc674595c, agree it's clearer for these comments to refer to the greppable name of the limit rather than the number
Tree-SHA512: 462afc1c64543877ac58cb3acdb01d42c6d08abfb362802f29f3482d75401a2a8adadbc2facd222a9a9fefcaab6854865ea400f50ad60bec17831d29f7798afe
