ea687d2029 doc: swap CPPFLAGS for APPEND_CPPFLAGS (fanquake)
Pull request description:
`APPEND_CPPFLAGS` will be understood by our CMake, whereas `CPPFLAGS` will not. Attempting what is currently documented will just give:
```bash
CMake Warning:
Ignoring extra path from command line:
"CPPFLAGS=-DDEBUG_LOCKCONTENTION"
```
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
ACK ea687d2029
hebasto:
ACK ea687d2029.
Tree-SHA512: b8d3359b77a813535a4fa715619b815cd88e5440950f7d4cd045514e6b45d3f1c7f62061315c8581d0a99c0aec38340d34008be05657d198d868b241d19b7828
386eecff5f doc: add release notes (ismaelsadeeq)
3eaa0a3b66 miner: init: add `-blockreservedweight` startup option (ismaelsadeeq)
777434a2cd doc: rpc: improve `getmininginfo` help text (ismaelsadeeq)
c8acd4032d init: fail to start when `-blockmaxweight` exceeds `MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT` (ismaelsadeeq)
5bb31633cc test: add `-blockmaxweight` startup option functional test (ismaelsadeeq)
2c7d90a6d6 miner: bugfix: fix duplicate weight reservation in block assembler (ismaelsadeeq)
Pull request description:
* This PR attempts to fix the duplicate coinbase weight reservation issue we currently have.
* Fixes#21950
We reserve 4000 weight units for coinbase transaction in `DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_WEIGHT`
7590e93bc7/src/policy/policy.h (L23)
And also reserve additional `4000` weight units in the default `BlockCreationOptions` struct.
7590e93bc7/src/node/types.h (L36-L40)
**Motivation**
- This issue was first noticed during a review here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11100#discussion_r136157411)
- It was later reported in issue #21950.
- I also came across the bug while writing a test for building the block template. I could not create a block template above `3,992,000` in the block assembler, and this was not documented anywhere. It took me a while to realize that we were reserving space for the coinbase transaction weight twice.
---
This PR fixes this by consolidating the reservation to be in a single location in the codebase.
This PR then adds a new startup option `-blockreservedweight` whose default is `8000` that can be used to lower or increase the block reserved weight for block header, txs count, coinbase tx.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
ACK 386eecff5f
fjahr:
Code review ACK 386eecff5f
glozow:
utACK 386eecff5f, nonblocking nits. I do think the release notes should be clarified more
pinheadmz:
ACK 386eecff5f
Tree-SHA512: f27efa1da57947b7f4d42b9322b83d13afe73dd749dd9cac49360002824dd41c99a876a610554ac2d67bad7485020b9dcc423a8e6748fc79d6a10de6d4357d4c
5c3e4d8b29 doc: add a section about using MSan (Antoine Poinsot)
Pull request description:
Just a couple lines in a subsection of the sanitizers section mentioning that using the memory sanitizer is a bit more involve than other sanitizers, describing the steps and pointing to an example.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK 5c3e4d8b29
dergoegge:
ACK 5c3e4d8b29
Tree-SHA512: 4ff73c2dd0f25cb96148e54bd867b8d340bd0fbc9b9a736a705125039352eb1d40bd724f9f262a44d3dbd1bea8f03166cf30e571d882fec02ceb1dd399ef7422
a4df12323c doc: add release notes (Sjors Provoost)
c75872ffdd test: use DIFF_1_N_BITS in tool_signet_miner (tdb3)
4131f322ac test: check difficulty adjustment using alternate mainnet (Sjors Provoost)
c4f68c12e2 Use OP_0 for BIP34 padding in signet and tests (Sjors Provoost)
cf0a62878b rpc: add next to getmininginfo (Sjors Provoost)
2d18a078a2 rpc: add target and bits to getchainstates (Sjors Provoost)
f153f57acc rpc: add target and bits to getblockchaininfo (Sjors Provoost)
baa504fdfa rpc: add target to getmininginfo result (Sjors Provoost)
2a7bfebd5e Add target to getblock(header) in RPC and REST (Sjors Provoost)
341f932516 rpc: add GetTarget helper (Sjors Provoost)
d20d96fa41 test: use REGTEST_N_BITS in feature_block (tdb3)
7ddbed4f9f rpc: add nBits to getmininginfo (Sjors Provoost)
ba7b9f3d7b build: move pow and chain to bitcoin_common (Sjors Provoost)
c4cc9e3e9d consensus: add DeriveTarget() to pow.h (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
**tl&dr for consensus-code only reviewers**: the first commit splits `CheckProofOfWorkImpl()` in order to create a `DeriveTarget()` helper. The rest of this PR does not touch consensus code.
There are three ways to represent the proof-of-work in a block:
1. nBits
2. Difficulty
3. Target
The latter notation is useful when you want to compare share work against either the pool target (to get paid) or network difficulty (found an actual block). E.g. for difficulty 1 which corresponds to an nBits value of `0x00ffff`:
```
share hash: f6b973257df982284715b0c7a20640dad709d22b0b1a58f2f88d35886ea5ac45
target: 7fffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
```
It's immediately clear that the share is invalid because the hash is above the target.
This type of logging is mostly done by the pool software. It's a nice extra convenience, but not very important. It impacts the following RPC calls:
1. `getmininginfo` displays the `target` for the tip block
2. `getblock` and `getblockheader` display the `target` for a specific block (ditto for their REST equivalents)
The `getdifficulty` method is a bit useless in its current state, because what miners really want to know if the difficulty for the _next_ block. So I added a boolean argument `next` to `getdifficulty`. (These values are typically the same, except for the first block in a retarget period. On testnet3 / testnet4 they change when no block is found after 20 minutes).
Similarly I added a `next` object to `getmininginfo` which shows `bit`, `difficulty` and `target` for the next block.
In order to test the difficulty transition, an alternate mainnet chain with 2016 blocks was generated and used in `mining_mainnet.py`. The chain is deterministic except for its timestamp and nonce values, which are stored in `mainnet_alt.json`.
As described at the top, this PR introduces a helper method `DeriveTarget()` which is split out from `CheckProofOfWorkImpl`. The proposed `checkblock` RPC in #31564 needs this helper method internally to figure out the consensus target.
Finally, this PR moves `pow.cpp` and `chain.cpp` from `bitcoin_node` to `bitcoin_common`, in order to give `rpc/util.cpp` (which lives in `bitcoin_common`) access to `pow.h`.
ACKs for top commit:
ismaelsadeeq:
re-ACK a4df12323c
tdb3:
code review re ACK a4df12323c
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK a4df12323c. Only overall changes since last review were dropping new `gettarget` method and dropping changes to `getdifficulty`, but there were also various internal changes splitting and rearranging commits.
Tree-SHA512: edef5633590379c4be007ac96fd1deda8a5b9562ca6ff19fe377cb552b5166f3890d158554c249ab8345977a06da5df07866c9f42ac43ee83dfe3830c61cd169
e94c9d1712 [doc] Amend notes on benchmarking (dergoegge)
Pull request description:
This gives some more context on the motivation and larger picture of benchmarks.
ACKs for top commit:
l0rinc:
ACK e94c9d1712
instagibbs:
reACK e94c9d1712
darosior:
reACK e94c9d1712
brunoerg:
reACK e94c9d1712
Tree-SHA512: 2cbf51f283f2efc0938e7021ae48db51fe89caf9ef9780821e99fa745dff839e2d202ca956ce6cc48b8319db304069728e77883feefe486264eb1783a0610c93
31a0e5f090 depends: Qt 5.15.16 (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Contains a handful of miscellaneous bug fixes.
We can drop a few of our patches.
See https://github.com/qt/qtbase/compare/v5.15.14-lts-lgpl...v5.15.16-lts-lgpl.
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
ACK 31a0e5f090.
TheCharlatan:
ACK 31a0e5f090
Tree-SHA512: dd7b3332dd6ecb95189bc72364883425fb8869e03850791d2ee92555a37046c7abaaee16575a0396f1ce9674856b894563dbd36868c2cf46f9fee48028fd967b
According to the description for pkg-config, "pkgconf is a
replacement for pkg-config, providing additional functionality
while also maintaining compatibility. This package only provides
a dependency link to the pkgconf package to help with package
upgrades. It can be safely removed."
Thus several scripts and markdown files are updated.
fa029a7878 doc: Clarify min macOS and Xcode version (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Two minor doc fixups:
* Clarify that `macOS 13.0+` means `macOS 13+`, indicating that on any major version, only the latest security release is supported.
* Clarify that the Xcode version was selected based on the minimum required macOS version and the minimum required clang version.
ACKs for top commit:
jarolrod:
ACK fa029a7878
hebasto:
re-ACK fa029a7878.
theuni:
ACK fa029a7878
Tree-SHA512: d34910fcc22e57021d7642938e5886419d2b711e1062cbc4fc3da48baf07377231f9d7b394e22ccb17e830d058c8c797dbd1bbffcc7c8828601bb500e1154a9e
0a76c292ac doc: Install `net/py-pyzmq` port on FreeBSD for `interface_zmq.py` (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
On FreeBSD, Python's `zmq` module is provided as a separate port.
This PR updates the FreeBSD Build Guide to include this port, enabling the `interface_zmq.py` functional test.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
lgtm ACK 0a76c292ac
vasild:
ACK 0a76c292ac
Tree-SHA512: c13eada3e870149f47348145d6a29f41125ac75efd88eabe6dd2d0429e0377ed280e76a764cfaf627498c1d07b9135a995cc644146fa666bc3bfa0eb2c86e88b
b6f0593f43 doc: add release note about testmempoolaccept debug-message (Matthew Zipkin)
f9cac63523 test: cover testmempoolaccept debug-message in RBF test (Matthew Zipkin)
f9650e18ea rbf: remove unecessary newline at end of error string (Matthew Zipkin)
221c789e91 rpc: include verbose reject-details field in testmempoolaccept response (Matthew Zipkin)
Pull request description:
Adds a new field `reject-details` in `testmempoolaccept` responses to include `m_debug_message` from `ValidationState`. This string is the complete error message thrown by the mempool in response to `sendrawtransaction`.
The extra verbosity is helpful to consumers of `testmempoolaccept`, which is sort of a debug tool anyway.
example:
>
> {
> "txid": "07d7a59a7bdad4c3a5070659ea04147c9b755ad9e173c52b6a38e017abf0f5b8",
> "wtxid": "5dc243b1b92ee2f5a43134eb3e23449be03d1abb3d7f3c03c836ed0f13c50185",
> "allowed": false,
> "reject-reason": "insufficient fee",
> "reject-details": "insufficient fee, rejecting replacement 07d7a59a7bdad4c3a5070659ea04147c9b755ad9e173c52b6a38e017abf0f5b8; new feerate 0.00300000 BTC/kvB <= old feerate 0.00300000 BTC/kvB"
> }
ACKs for top commit:
rkrux:
re-ACK b6f0593f43
glozow:
ACK b6f0593f43
Tree-SHA512: 340b8023d59cefa84598879c4efdb7c399a3f62da126e87c595523f302e53d33098fc69da9c5f8c92b7580dc75466c66cea372051f935b197265648fe15c43a3
1. Update the documented NetBSD version.
2. Add the optional ZeroMQ package to align the guide with other *BSD
systems.
3. Update the Python version to meet the minimum requirement specified
in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30527.
4. Install `net/py-zmq` package to enable the `interface_zmq.py`
functional test.
5. Fix a formatting issue.
1dd3af8fbc Add release note for #31223 (Martin Zumsande)
997757dd2b test: add functional test for -port behavior (Martin Zumsande)
0e2b12b92a net, init: derive default onion port if a user specified a -port (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
This resolves#31133 (setups with multiple local nodes each using a different `-port` no longer working with v28.0, see the issue description for more details) by deriving the default onion listening port to be the value specified by `-port` incremented by 1 (idea by vasild / laanwj).
Note that with this fix, the chosen `-port` values of two local nodes cannot be adjacent, otherwise there will be port collisions again.
From the discussion in the linked issue, this was the most popular option, followed by doing nothing and telling affected users to change their setups to use `-bind` instead of `-port`. But more opinions are certainly welcome!
I think that if we decide to do something about the problem described in the issue, we should do so soon (in 28.1.), so I opened this PR.
Fixes#31133
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 1dd3af8fbc
laanwj:
Tested ACK 1dd3af8fbc
tdb3:
Code review ACK 1dd3af8fbc
Tree-SHA512: 37fda2b23bbedcab5df3a401cf5afce66ae5318fb78f9660f83e3fd075b528e8156d7a0903f9a12ffe97ab5d83860587116b74af28670a1f4c2f0d1be4999f40
32fc59796f rpc: Allow single transaction through submitpackage (glozow)
Pull request description:
There's no particular reason to restrict single transaction submissions with submitpackage. This change relaxes the RPC checks as enables the `AcceptPackage` flow to accept packages of a single transaction.
Resolves#31085
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 32fc59796f
achow101:
ACK 32fc59796f
glozow:
ACK 32fc59796f
Tree-SHA512: ffed353bfdca610ffcfd53b40b76da05ffc26df6bac4b0421492e067bede930380e03399d2e2d1d17f0e88fb91cd8eb376e3aabebbabcc724590bf068d09807c
73db95c65c kernel: Make bitcoin-chainstate's block validation mirror submitblock's (TheCharlatan)
bb53ce9bda tests: Add functional test for submitting a previously pruned block (Greg Sanders)
1f7fc73825 rpc: Remove submitblock duplicate pre-check (TheCharlatan)
e62a8abd7d rpc: Remove submitblock invalid-duplicate precheck (TheCharlatan)
36dbebafb9 rpc: Remove submitblock coinbase pre-check (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and (potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other interfaces do not.
The coinbase check is repeated again early during ProcessNewBlock. Pre-checking it may also shadow more fundamental problems with a block. In most cases the block header is checked first, before validating the transactions. Checking the coinbase first therefore masks potential issues with the header. Fix this by removing the pre-check.
Similary the duplicate checks are repeated early in the contextual checks of ProcessNewBlock. If duplicate blocks are detected much of their validation is skipped. Depending on the constitution of the block, validating the merkle root of the block is part of the more intensive workload when validating a block. This could be an argument for moving the pre-checks into block processing. In net_processing this would have a smaller effect however, since the block mutation check, which also validates the merkle root, is done before.
Testing spamming a node with valid, but duplicate unrequested blocks seems to exhaust a CPU thread, but does not seem to significantly impact keeping up with the tip. The benefits of adding these checks to net_processing are questionable, especially since there are other ways to trigger the more CPU-intensive checks without submitting a duplicate block. Since these DOS concerns apply even less to the RPC interface, which does not have banning mechanics built in, remove them too.
Finally, also remove the pre-checks from `bitcoin-chainstate.cpp`.
---
This PR is part of the [libbitcoinkernel project](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587).
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 73db95c65c
achow101:
ACK 73db95c65c
instagibbs:
ACK 73db95c65c
mzumsande:
ACK 73db95c65c
Tree-SHA512: 2d02e851cf402ecf6a1968c058df3576aac407e200cbf922a1a6391b7f97b4f42c6d9f6b0a78b9d1af0a6d40bdd529a7b11a1e6d88885bd7b8b090f6d1411861
8bf1b3039c doc: Use more precise anchor links to Xcode SDK extraction (Jeremy Rand)
Pull request description:
The "SDK Extraction" section is what users presumably are looking for when they follow these links.
ACKs for top commit:
fanquake:
ACK 8bf1b3039c
Tree-SHA512: 38669a6b171aa102bb80f5b3a343bd6a067c6921c454f6d18087c5add8016eea2ba8196036f9968f0a9b7df1f642c96ff6c657338c32e775beb04038497cde1f
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
ee1128ead8 doc: update stack-clash-protection comment re mingw-w64 (fanquake)
bf47448f15 test: drop check for Windows < 10 (fanquake)
35b898c47f release: target Windows 10 or later (fanquake)
398754e70b depends: target Windows 10 when building for mingw-w64 (fanquake)
Pull request description:
Follows up to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31048#discussion_r1803165670.
We definitely cannot claim that Bitcoin Core is "supported and extensively tested on" on Windows 7.
Note that #30997 is also increasing the minimum required Windows version (for the GUI) to 10.
ACKs for top commit:
hodlinator:
cr-ACK ee1128ead8
davidgumberg:
ACK ee1128ead8
achow101:
ACK ee1128ead8
hebasto:
re-ACK ee1128ead8, only rebased, a commit message and a comment have been amended since my recent [review](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31172#pullrequestreview-2415452160).
TheCharlatan:
ACK ee1128ead8
Tree-SHA512: 245e0bac3d63414d919a1948661fef4ff79359faaacaf19d64abd91cc62e822797fb1cf3379e340bfdf9a85c0b88fd99a90eda450dd4218b6213ab78aefb1374
And under the hood suppoert single transactions
in AcceptPackage. This simplifies user experience
and paves the way for reducing number of codepaths
for transaction acceptance in the future.
Co-Authored-By: instagibbs <gsanders87@gmail.com>
The duplicate checks are repeated early in the contextual checks of
ProcessNewBlock. If duplicate blocks are detected much of their
validation is skipped. Depending on the constitution of the block,
validating the merkle root of the block is part of the more intensive
workload when validating a block. This could be an argument for moving
the pre-checks into block processing. In net_processing this would have
a smaller effect however, since the block mutation check, which also
validates the merkle root, is done before.
A side effect of this change is that a duplicate block is persisted
again on disk even when pruning is activated. This is similar to the
behaviour with getblockfrompeer. Add a release note for this change in
behaviour.
Testing spamming a node with valid, but duplicate unrequested blocks
seems to exhaust a CPU thread, but does not seem to significantly impact
keeping up with the tip. The benefits of adding these checks to
net_processing are questionable, especially since there are other ways
to trigger the more CPU-intensive checks without submitting a duplicate
block. Since these DOS concerns apply even less to the RPC interface,
which does not have banning mechanics built in, remove them too.
---
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future
introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important
to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is
ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and
(potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on
suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both
developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks
if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been
processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the
kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other
interfaces do not.
Brew has migrated to using the later:
```bash
brew info pkg-config
==> pkgconf: stable 2.3.0 (bottled), HEAD
Package compiler and linker metadata toolkit
https://github.com/pkgconf/pkgconf
```
5736d1ddac tracing: pass if replaced by tx/pkg to tracepoint (0xb10c)
a4ec07f194 doc: add comments for CTxMemPool::ChangeSet (Suhas Daftuar)
83f814b1d1 Remove m_all_conflicts from SubPackageState (Suhas Daftuar)
d3c8e7dfb6 Ensure that we don't add duplicate transactions in rbf fuzz tests (Suhas Daftuar)
d7dc9fd2f7 Move CalculateChunksForRBF() to the mempool changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
284a1d33f1 Move prioritisation into changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
446b08b599 Don't distinguish between direct conflicts and all conflicts when doing cluster-size-2-rbf checks (Suhas Daftuar)
b53041021a Duplicate transactions are not permitted within a changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
b447416fdd Public mempool removal methods Assume() no changeset is outstanding (Suhas Daftuar)
2b30f4d36c Make RemoveStaged() private (Suhas Daftuar)
18829194ca Enforce that there is only one changeset at a time (Suhas Daftuar)
7fb62f7db6 Apply mempool changeset transactions directly into the mempool (Suhas Daftuar)
34b6c5833d Clean up FinalizeSubpackage to avoid workspace-specific information (Suhas Daftuar)
57983b8add Move LimitMempoolSize to take place outside FinalizeSubpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
01e145b975 Move changeset from workspace to subpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
802214c083 Introduce mempool changesets (Suhas Daftuar)
87d92fa340 test: Add unit test coverage of package rbf + prioritisetransaction (Suhas Daftuar)
15d982f91e Add package hash to package-rbf log message (Suhas Daftuar)
Pull request description:
part of cluster mempool: #30289
It became clear while working on cluster mempool that it would be helpful for transaction validation if we could consider a full set of proposed changes to the mempool -- consisting of a set of transactions to add, and a set of transactions (ie conflicts) to simultaneously remove -- and perform calculations on what the mempool would look like if the proposed changes were to be applied. Two specific examples of where we'd like to do this:
- Determining if ancestor/descendant/TRUC limits would be violated (in the future, cluster limits) if either a single transaction or a package of transactions were to be accepted
- Determining if an RBF would make the mempool "better", however that idea is defined, both in the single transaction and package of transaction cases
In preparation for cluster mempool, I have pulled this reworking of the mempool interface out of #28676 so it can be reviewed on its own. I have not re-implemented ancestor/descendant limits to be run through the changeset, since with cluster mempool those limits will be going away, so this seems like wasted effort. However, I have rebased #28676 on top of this branch so reviewers can see what the new mempool interface could look like in the cluster mempool setting.
There are some minor behavior changes here, which I believe are inconsequential:
- In the package validation setting, transactions would be added to the mempool before the `ConsensusScriptChecks()` are run. In theory, `ConsensusScriptChecks()` should always pass if the `PolicyScriptChecks()` have passed and it's just a belt-and-suspenders for us, but if somehow they were to diverge then there could be some small behavior change from adding transactions and then removing them, versus never adding them at all.
- The error reporting on `CheckConflictTopology()` has slightly changed due to no longer distinguishing between direct conflicts and indirect conflicts. I believe this should be entirely inconsequential because there shouldn't be a logical difference between those two ideas from the perspective of this function, but I did have to update some error strings in some tests.
- Because, in a package setting, RBFs now happen as part of the entire package being accepted, the logging has changed slightly because we do not know which transaction specifically evicted a given removed transaction.
- Specifically, the "package hash" is now used to reference the set of transactions that are being accepted, rather than any single txid. The log message relating to package RBF that happen in the `TXPACKAGES` category has been updated as well to include the package hash, so that it's possible to see which specific set of transactions are being referenced by that package hash.
- Relatedly, the tracepoint logging in the package rbf case has been updated as well to reference the package hash, rather than a transaction hash.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 5736d1ddac
instagibbs:
ACK 5736d1ddac
ismaelsadeeq:
reACK 5736d1ddac
glozow:
ACK 5736d1ddac
Tree-SHA512: 21810872e082920d337c89ac406085aa71c5f8e5151ab07aedf41e6601f60a909b22fbf462ef3b735d5d5881e9b76142c53957158e674dd5dfe6f6aabbdf630b
ac286e0d1b doc: Fix grammatical errors in multisig-tutorial.md (secp512k2)
Pull request description:
This pull request fixes grammatical errors in the `multisig-tutorial.md` document.
ACKs for top commit:
Abdulkbk:
ACK ac286e0d1b
Tree-SHA512: 684fe16e802431109957b9cde441353edeb16ffffde4282310c1a6f104adffc53347d00a2cf3a5969a78803f3177d6056ca37d3b7e8be52c2ec43ec0b9fcf4d9
The mempool:replaced tracepoint now reports either a txid or a
package hash (previously it always was a txid). To let users know
if a txid or package hash is passed, a boolean argument is added
the the tracepoint.
In the functional test, a ctypes.Structure class for MempoolReplaced
is introduced as Python warns the following when not explcitly
casting it to a ctype:
Type: 'bool' not recognized. Please define the data with ctypes manually.
