19b0ff2fa0
1dad06eff3remove stale canonical form claim from getdescriptorinfo help (Craig Raw) Pull request description: `getdescriptorinfo` describes its `descriptor` result as: > The descriptor in canonical form, without private keys. The returned string is a re-serialisation of the parsed descriptor with private keys removed. It is not a canonical form: descriptors that describe the same wallet routinely come back as different strings with different checksums, and this is deliberate. Three things the RPC does not canonicalise: - **The hardened derivation marker.** #26076 added `m_apostrophe` so that the marker the caller used is preserved rather than rewritten (`src/script/descriptor.cpp:262`, `:512`); it first shipped in v26.0. Before that, `FormatHDKeypath()` emitted `'` unconditionally (v25.0, `src/util/bip32.cpp:54`), so `h` supplied by the caller was rewritten — the behaviour #15740 objected to under the name "canonicalize". Where a single key expression mixes both markers, the style of its last hardened element is applied to the whole expression, which is still input-dependent. - **Key order in `multi()` / `sortedmulti()`.** The order is preserved as given. For `sortedmulti()` the written order carries no meaning at all, since BIP 383 sorts the derived keys when the output script is built, so the same wallet has n! equally valid descriptors. - **The checksum.** The `checksum` field is computed over the *input* string (`src/rpc/output_script.cpp:215`), so it can differ from the checksum embedded in the returned `descriptor` — e.g. when a private key was supplied. ``` $ bitcoin-cli getdescriptorinfo "sortedmulti(1,03a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd,04a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd5b8dec5235a0fa8722476c7709c02559e3aa73aa03918ba2d492eea75abea235)" | jq -r .descriptor sortedmulti(1,03a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd,04a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd5b8dec5235a0fa8722476c7709c02559e3aa73aa03918ba2d492eea75abea235)#fne5696l $ bitcoin-cli getdescriptorinfo "sortedmulti(1,04a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd5b8dec5235a0fa8722476c7709c02559e3aa73aa03918ba2d492eea75abea235,03a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd)" | jq -r .descriptor sortedmulti(1,04a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd5b8dec5235a0fa8722476c7709c02559e3aa73aa03918ba2d492eea75abea235,03a34b99f22c790c4e36b2b3c2c35a36db06226e41c692fc82b8b56ac1c540c5bd)#w5gau8hw ``` Both produce the same output script; neither is more canonical than the other. The same applies to the marker: ``` $ bitcoin-cli getdescriptorinfo "wpkh([f6bb4c63/0h/0h/30h]028429a37c3f09c8c5cc1fab58df32d1a7da7616c748a40eeb1aae1d64acb9c5cc)" | jq -r .descriptor wpkh([f6bb4c63/0h/0h/30h]028429a37c3f09c8c5cc1fab58df32d1a7da7616c748a40eeb1aae1d64acb9c5cc)#vk9vfu0h $ bitcoin-cli getdescriptorinfo "wpkh([f6bb4c63/0'/0'/30']028429a37c3f09c8c5cc1fab58df32d1a7da7616c748a40eeb1aae1d64acb9c5cc)" | jq -r .descriptor wpkh([f6bb4c63/0'/0'/30']028429a37c3f09c8c5cc1fab58df32d1a7da7616c748a40eeb1aae1d64acb9c5cc)#5wdxpxcx ``` The wording dates from v0.18.0 (`src/rpc/misc.cpp:153`), where it did describe the behaviour, and has been carried forward unchanged since. Whether the RPC should canonicalise was settled in #15740 in favour of round-tripping what the caller supplied; this only brings the description into line with that outcome. I have deliberately not replaced the phrase with "normal form" or "normalized". Those terms already denote a different transformation in this codebase — BIP 380's "Normalization of Key Expressions with Hardened Derivation", implemented as `Descriptor::ToNormalizedString()` ("Normalized descriptors have the xpub at the last hardened step", `src/script/descriptor.h:140`) — which `getdescriptorinfo` does not perform. Dropping the qualifier avoids the collision. Documentation only; no behaviour change. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the repo. ```diff -{RPCResult::Type::STR, "descriptor", "The descriptor in canonical form, without private keys. For a multipath descriptor, only the first will be returned."}, +{RPCResult::Type::STR, "descriptor", "The descriptor, without private keys. For a multipath descriptor, only the first will be returned."}, ``` If reviewers would rather the help positively state what is preserved (hardened marker and key order as supplied, checksum recomputed), I am happy to expand it; I have kept the change minimal. ACKs for top commit: l0rinc: ACK1dad06eff3Eunovo: ACK1dad06eff3: rkrux: lgtm ACK1dad06eff3Tree-SHA512: 7b03100fdbc71c867d26094eb3975dfe967875a977ef3c7264b8bb3b920db319d6f11dbde1d39bb70fff2b2288eca42aadffc215ab7503dcc7b3bf62fc2692e5
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree
For an immediately usable, binary version of the Bitcoin Core software, see https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/.
What is Bitcoin Core?
Bitcoin Core connects to the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network to download and fully validate blocks and transactions. It also includes a wallet and graphical user interface, which can be optionally built.
Further information about Bitcoin Core is available in the doc folder.
License
Bitcoin Core is released under the terms of the MIT license. See COPYING for more information or see https://opensource.org/license/MIT.
Development Process
The master branch is regularly built (see doc/build-*.md for instructions) and tested, but it is not guaranteed to be
completely stable. Tags are created
regularly from release branches to indicate new official, stable release versions of Bitcoin Core.
The https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui repository is used exclusively for the development of the GUI. Its master branch is identical in all monotree repositories. Release branches and tags do not exist, so please do not fork that repository unless it is for development reasons.
The contribution workflow is described in CONTRIBUTING.md and useful hints for developers can be found in doc/developer-notes.md.
Testing
Testing and code review is the bottleneck for development; we get more pull requests than we can review and test on short notice. Please be patient and help out by testing other people's pull requests, and remember this is a security-critical project where any mistake might cost people lots of money.
Automated Testing
Developers are strongly encouraged to write unit tests for new code, and to
submit new unit tests for old code. Unit tests can be compiled and run
(assuming they weren't disabled during the generation of the build system) with: ctest. Further details on running
and extending unit tests can be found in /src/test/README.md.
There are also regression and integration tests, written
in Python.
These tests can be run (if the test dependencies are installed) with: build/test/functional/test_runner.py
(assuming build is your build directory).
The CI (Continuous Integration) systems make sure that every pull request is tested on Windows, Linux, and macOS. The CI must pass on all commits before merge to avoid unrelated CI failures on new pull requests.
Manual Quality Assurance (QA) Testing
Changes should be tested by somebody other than the developer who wrote the code. This is especially important for large or high-risk changes. It is useful to add a test plan to the pull request description if testing the changes is not straightforward.
Translations
Changes to translations as well as new translations can be submitted to Bitcoin Core's Transifex page.
Translations are periodically pulled from Transifex and merged into the git repository. See the translation process for details on how this works.
Important: We do not accept translation changes as GitHub pull requests because the next pull from Transifex would automatically overwrite them again.