4671fc3d9e Expand on wallet_balance.py comment from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16766\#issuecomment-527563982 (Jeremy Rubin)
91f3073f08 Update release notes to mention changes to IsTrusted and impact on wallet (Jeremy Rubin)
8f174ef112 Systematize style of IsTrusted single line if (Jeremy Rubin)
b49dcbedf7 update variable naming conventions for IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin)
5ffe0d1449 Update comment in test/functional/wallet_balance.py (Jeremy Rubin)
a550c58267 Update wallet_balance.py test to reflect new behavior (Jeremy Rubin)
5dd7da4ccd Reuse trustedParents in looped calls to IsTrusted (Jeremy Rubin)
595f09d6de Cache tx Trust per-call to avoid DoS (Jeremy Rubin)
dce032ce29 Make IsTrusted scan parents recursively (Jeremy Rubin)
Pull request description:
This slightly modifies the behavior of IsTrusted to recursively check the parents of a transaction. Otherwise, it's possible that a parent is not IsTrusted but a child is. If a parent is not trusted, then a child should not be either.
This recursive scan can be a little expensive, so ~it might be beneficial to have a way of caching IsTrusted state, but this is a little complex because various conditions can change between calls to IsTrusted (e.g., re-org).~ I added a cache which works per call/across calls, but does not store the results semi-permanently. Which reduces DoS risk of this change. There is no risk of untrusted parents causing a resource exploitation, as we immediately return once that is detected.
This is a change that came up as a bug-fix esque change while working on OP_SECURETHEBAG. You can see the branch where this change is important here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...JeremyRubin:stb-with-rpc?expand=1. Essentially, without this change, we can be tricked into accepting an OP_SECURETHEBAG output because we don't properly check the parents. As this was a change which, on its own, was not dependent on OP_SECURETHEBAG, I broke it out as I felt the change stands on its own by fixing a long standing wallet bug.
The test wallet_balance.py has been corrected to meet the new behavior. The below comment, reproduced, explains what the issue is and the edge cases that can arise before this change.
# Before `test_balance()`, we have had two nodes with a balance of 50
# each and then we:
#
# 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01
# 2) Sent 60 from node B to node A with fee 0.01
#
# Then we check the balances:
#
# 1) As is
# 2) With transaction 2 from above with 2x the fee
#
# Prior to #16766, in this situation, the node would immediately report
# a balance of 30 on node B as unconfirmed and trusted.
#
# After #16766, we show that balance as unconfirmed.
#
# The balance is indeed "trusted" and "confirmed" insofar as removing
# the mempool transactions would return at least that much money. But
# the algorithm after #16766 marks it as unconfirmed because the 'taint'
# tracking of transaction trust for summing balances doesn't consider
# which inputs belong to a user. In this case, the change output in
# question could be "destroyed" by replace the 1st transaction above.
#
# The post #16766 behavior is correct; we shouldn't be treating those
# funds as confirmed. If you want to rely on that specific UTXO existing
# which has given you that balance, you cannot, as a third party
# spending the other input would destroy that unconfirmed.
#
# For example, if the test transactions were:
#
# 1) Sent 40 from node A to node B with fee 0.01
# 2) Sent 10 from node B to node A with fee 0.01
#
# Then our node would report a confirmed balance of 40 + 50 - 10 = 80
# BTC, which is more than would be available if transaction 1 were
# replaced.
The release notes have been updated to note the new behavior.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
Code Review ACK 4671fc3, maybe extend DoS protection in a follow-up PR.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e. Changes since last review: 2 new commits adding suggested release note and python test comment, also a clean rebase with no changes to the earlier commits. The PR description is more comprehensive now, too. Looks good!
promag:
Code review ACK 4671fc3d9e.
Tree-SHA512: 6b183ff425304fef49724290053514cb2770f4a2350dcb83660ef24af5c54f7c4c2c345b0f62bba60eb2d2f70625ee61a7fab76a7f491bb5a84be5c4cc86b92f
3ed8e3d079 doc: Remove explicit network name references (Fabian Jahr)
d6e493f0c2 wallet: Remove left-over BIP70 comment (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
A small follow-up to #17165 which removed BIP70 support.
1. Removes one leftover mention of BIP70 in a comment.
2. Removes BIP70 reference in comments on network/chain name strings. These can be removed as they are not really helpful and also incorrect: BIP70 only defines "main" and "test" but not "regtest". If/When signet gets merged we will add another name to the list that is not defined in BIP70. Mostly there is also an exhaustive list of the options included in the comment anyway.
If we would like to keep an identifier for this naming scheme, I would suggest switching to something more generic, like 'short chain name'. Happy to implement that if that is preferred. Alternatively, we could add a reference to `CBaseChainParams`. That would also mean we don't have to change these lines again for signet.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK 3ed8e3d079
Tree-SHA512: 9a7c0b9cacbb67bd31a089ffdc6f1ebc7f336493e2c8266eb697da34dce2b505a431d5639a3e4fc34f9287361343e861b55dc2662e0a1d2095cc1046db77d6ee
1cf9b35c0d doc: Add developer note on c_str() (Wladimir J. van der Laan)
Pull request description:
Add a note when to use and when not to use `c_str()`.
ACKs for top commit:
elichai:
ACK 1cf9b35c0d
MarcoFalke:
Looking nice ACK 1cf9b35c0d
Tree-SHA512: 38cb5e54695782c23a82d03db214a8999b5bb52553f4fbe5322281686f42616981a217ba987feb6d87f3e6b95919cadd8484efe69ecc364ba1731aaf173626c9
9075d13153 [docs] Add release notes for removal of REJECT reasons (John Newbery)
04a2f326ec [validation] Fix REJECT message comments (John Newbery)
e9d5a59e34 [validation] Remove REJECT code from CValidationState (John Newbery)
0053e16714 [logging] Don't log REJECT code when transaction is rejected (John Newbery)
a1a07cfe99 [validation] Fix peer punishment for bad blocks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
We no longer send BIP 61 REJECT messages, so there's no need to set
a REJECT code in the CValidationState object.
Note that there is a minor bug fix in p2p behaviour here. Because the
call to `MaybePunishNode()` in `PeerLogicValidation::BlockChecked()` only
previously happened if the REJECT code was > 0 and < `REJECT_INTERNAL`,
then there are cases were `MaybePunishNode()` can get called where it
wasn't previously:
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `CACHED_INVALID`.
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `BLOCK_MISSING_PREV`.
Note that `BlockChecked()` cannot fail with an 'internal' reject code. The
only internal reject code was `REJECT_HIGHFEE`, which was only set in
ATMP.
This reverts a minor bug introduced in 5d08c9c579.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
ACK 9075d13, changes since last reviewed are splitting them in separate commits to ease understanding and fix nits
fjahr:
ACK 9075d13153, confirmed diff to last review was fixing nits in docs/comments.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9075d13153. Only changes since last review are splitting the main commit and updating comments
Tree-SHA512: 58e8a1a4d4e6f156da5d29fb6ad6a62fc9c594bbfc6432b3252e962d0e9e10149bf3035185dc5320c46c09f3e49662bc2973ec759679c0f3412232087cb8a3a7
fa6ed82794 doc: update bips.md with buried BIP9 deployments (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Also, remove the activation heights, as they can be retrieved from `./src/chainparams.cpp` (if needed)
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa6ed82794, needs backport to 0.19 I guess.
Tree-SHA512: 9c069cc14589a3e2309d76f042677c024a9e14d16dbfccef54c4a2963ca7853d01f042b0237e346538c557591b7553deed9dd811ba64bbd0ced88883d562c59a
86b9f92da2 doc: Add detailed info about Bitcoin Core files (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR:
- provides detailed info about the Bitcoin Core files;
- does not mention temporary files, e.g., `mempool.dat.new` and `peers.????`
ACKs for top commit:
ch4ot1c:
ACK 86b9f92
laanwj:
ACK 86b9f92da2
MarcoFalke:
ACK 86b9f92da2
Tree-SHA512: 9352119b08e3f6aaab4ce3797afc6533f90852e461957acb2bc73962fd4881403fabeaa5a371bd1218309f36f9b0f90fb147b80698e2e30a016634a62a160a15
a54ab2104c [doc] fix Makefile target in benchmarking.md (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
While the resulting binary is called `bench_bitcoin`, the Makefile target is
named `bitcoin_bench` (see `src/Makefile.bench.include`)
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK a54ab2104c - Tested on macOS and Debian 9.9, as this only [seemed to work there](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16536#discussion_r310366868) when these docs were added.
Tree-SHA512: bcf8d48ccba488f0533111a3be57ddc6c948b3a38beed129635e1c7e0b4608bc9ddf625e8469606bb31d4cedf3341c443564a197d6b1ab5268a9ed44ed5018a3
fa25f43ac5 p2p: Remove BIP61 reject messages (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Reject messages (BIP 61) appear in the following settings:
* Parsing of reject messages (in case `-debug=net` is set, off by default). This has only been used for a single `LogPrint` call for several releases now. Such logging is completely meaningless to us and should thus be removed.
* The sending of reject messages (in case `-enablebip61` is set, off by default). This can be used to debug a node that is under our control. Instead of hacking this debugging into the p2p protocol, it could be more easily achieved by parsing the debug log. (Use `-printtoconsole` to have it as stream, or read from the `debug.log` file like our python function `assert_debug_log` in the test framework does)
Having to maintain all of this logic and code to accommodate debugging, which can be achieved by other means a lot easier, is a burden. It makes review on net processing changes a lot harder, since the reject message logic has to be carried around without introducing any errors or DOS vectors.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK fa25f43ac5
laanwj:
I'm still not 100% convinced that I like getting rid of BIP61 conceptually, but apparently everyone wants it, code review ACK fa25f43ac5.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK fa25f43ac5
Tree-SHA512: daf55254202925e56be3d6cfb3c1c804e7a82cecb1dd1e5bd7b472bae989fd68ac4f21ec53fc46751353056fd645f7f877bebcb0b40920257991423a3d99e0be
faca1c24f9 doc: move-only: Steps for "before major release branch-off" (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The chainparams are updated before branch-off, so that the master branch has the bumped values as well
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK faca1c24f9
Tree-SHA512: ffc3ea49f0f6dc64dd9bea958e12ebc058496291c1c06d02994b3bf1751602e7c5000fd5eda166fcdbf9ba6d593e19731e93342dd8f2fe410f656a798bef459c
ea4cc3a7b3 Truly decouple wallet from chainparams for -fallbackfee (Jorge Timón)
Pull request description:
Before it was 0 by default for main and 20000 for test and regtest.
Now it is 0 by default for all chains, thus there's no need to call Params().
Also now the default for main is properly documented.
Suggestion for release notes:
-fallbackfee was 0 (disabled) by default for the main chain, but 20000 by default for the test chains. Now it is 0 by default for all chains. Testnet and regtest users will have to add fallbackfee=20000 to their configuration if they weren't setting it and they want it to keep working like before.
Should I propose them to the wiki for the release notes or only after merge?
For more context, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16402#issuecomment-515701042
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK ea4cc3a7b3
Tree-SHA512: fdfaba5d813da4221e405e0988bef44f3856d10f897a94f9614386d14b7716f4326ab8a6646e26d41ef3f4fa61b936191e216b1b605e9ab0520b0657fc162e6c
Before it was 0 by default for main and 20000 for test and regtest.
Now it is 0 by default for all chains, thus there's no need to call Params().
Also now the default for main is properly documented
fa3d98426b doc: Consolidate release notes before 0.19.0 (MarcoFalke)
fa02f2d607 doc: Add missing release notes for 16383 (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK fa3d98426b - these can get massaged / nitted to death in the wiki.
Tree-SHA512: a08f6e5990bf1f2d15939142e14887582899fb2f71962a52a4a2db13e0643c70486193cd1b28a18099dadbe87d045a192d2546793f30551b5151f410b03907fa
eb4c43e49f doc: documents how to calculate m_assumed_blockchain_size and m_assumed_chain_state_size on the release process. (marcoagner)
Pull request description:
Regarding [this](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15183#issuecomment-463133734) on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15183.
Added an "Additional information" section for this which seems reasonable to me but may not be the best place for this. Also, let me know if anything else should be documented here (like more details).
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK eb4c43e49f
Tree-SHA512: 7e6fc46740daa01dd9be5a8da7846e7a9f7fa866bf31fdc2cb252f90c698cfd6ef954f9588f7abcebda2355ec2b2a380635e14a164e53e77d38abefa3e2cc698
Move qt translations to a separate make include file.
This makes it easier to auto-generate this list from tooling
(see bitcoin-core/bitcoin-maintainer-tools#36).
