c0d91fc69c67e6f7123326d4f3caeac069d2637b Add release note for #33050 and #33183 error string changes (Antoine Poinsot)
b3f781a0ef4b763ef7ba8b5b20871a7707ec090e contrib: adapt max reject string size in tracing demo (Antoine Poinsot)
9a04635432183c437829339dbf10e7d702581010 scripted-diff: validation: rename mandatory errors into block errors (Antoine Poinsot)
Pull request description:
This is a followup to #33050 now that it's merged. Using "block"/"mempool" as the error reason is clearer to a user than "mandatory"/"non-mandatory". The "non-mandatory" errors got renamed to "mempool" in #33050 (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33050#discussion_r2230103371). This takes care of the second part of the renaming.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
utACK c0d91fc69c67e6f7123326d4f3caeac069d2637b
davidgumberg:
lgtm ACK c0d91fc69c
ajtowns:
utACK c0d91fc69c67e6f7123326d4f3caeac069d2637b
Crypt-iQ:
utACK c0d91fc69c67e6f7123326d4f3caeac069d2637b
janb84:
utACK c0d91fc69c67e6f7123326d4f3caeac069d2637b
instagibbs:
ACK c0d91fc69c67e6f7123326d4f3caeac069d2637b
Tree-SHA512: b463e633c57dd1eae7c49d23239a59066a672f355142ec194982eddc927a7646bc5cde583dc8d6f45075bf5cbb96dbe73f7e339e728929b0eff356b674d1b68c
ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791 [doc] update mempool-replacements.md for incremental relay feerate change (glozow)
18720bc5d5b4d3acf91060859180d72cbfdf59b7 [doc] release note for min feerate changes (glozow)
6da5de58cabc4133c379baa50845e30e5bc6b3e4 [policy] lower default minrelaytxfee and incrementalrelayfee to 100sat/kvB (glozow)
2e515d2897eaa5a9b012eb78aef105e1cf80d42b [prep/test] make wallet_fundrawtransaction's minrelaytxfee assumption explicit (glozow)
457cfb61b5323a13218b3cfb5a6a6d8b3a7c5f7f [prep/util] help MockMempoolMinFee handle more precise feerates (glozow)
3eab8b724044dc321f70e5eed66b149713158a04 [prep/test] replace magic number 1000 with respective feerate vars (glozow)
5f2df0ef78be7b24798d0983c9b962740608f1f4 [miner] lower default -blockmintxfee to 1sat/kvB (glozow)
d6213d6aa114aeed6804a585491d741386fd2739 [doc] assert that default min relay feerate and incremental are the same (glozow)
1fbee5d7b61b83e68e4230c8a97ca308de92c4c3 [test] explicitly check default -minrelaytxfee and -incrementalrelayfee (glozow)
72dc18467dbfc16cdbda2dd109b087243b397799 [test] RBF rule 4 for various incrementalrelayfee settings (glozow)
85f498893f54ea7d84f2bdf12aa35d198edf8a72 [test] check bypass of minrelay for various minrelaytxfee settings (glozow)
e5f896bb1f052fb8c7811c6024cb49143b427512 [test] check miner doesn't select 0fee transactions (glozow)
Pull request description:
ML post for discussion about the general concept, how this impacts the wider ecosystem, philosophy about minimum feerates, etc: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/changing-the-minimum-relay-feerate/1886
This PR is inspired by #13922 and #32959 to lower the minimum relay feerate in response to bitcoin's exchange rate changes in the last ~10 years. It lowers the default `-minrelaytxfee` and `-incrementalrelayfee`, and knocks `-blockmintxfee` down to the minimum nonzero setting. Also adds some tests for the settings and pulls in #32750.
The minimum relay feerate is a DoS protection rule, representing a price on the network bandwidth used to relay transactions that have no PoW. While relay nodes don't all collect fees, the assumption is that if nodes on the network use their resources to relay this transaction, it will reach a miner and the attacker's money will be spent once it is mined. The incremental relay feerate is similar: it's used to price the relay of replacement transactions (the additional fees need to cover the new transactions at this feerate) and evicted transactions (following a trim, the new mempool minimum feerate is the package feerate of what was removed + incremental).
Also note that many nodes on the network have elected to relay/mine lower feerate transactions. Miners (some say up to 85%) are choosing to mine these low feerate transactions instead of leaving block space unfilled, but these blocks have extremely poor compact block reconstruction rates with nodes that rejected or didn't hear about those transactions earlier.
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3155627414
- https://x.com/caesrcd/status/1947022514267230302
- https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001305770e0aa279dcd8ba8be18c3d5cf736a26f77e06fd
- https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001b491649ec030aa8e003e1f4f9d3b24bb99ba16f91e97
- https://x.com/mononautical/status/1949452586391855121
While it wouldn't make sense to loosen DoS restrictions recklessly in response to these events, I think the current price is higher than necessary, and this motivates us changing the default soon. Since the minimum relay feerate defines an amount as too small based on what it costs the attacker, it makes sense to consider BTC's conversion rate to what resources you can buy in the "real world."
Going off of [this comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32959#issuecomment-3095260286) and [this comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3142444090)
- Let's say an attacker wants to use/exhaust the network's bandwidth, and has the choice between renting resources from a commercial provider and getting the network to "spam" itself it by sending unconfirmed transactions. We'd like the latter to be more expensive than the former.
- The bandwidth for relaying a transaction across the network is roughly its serialized size (plus relay overhead) x number of nodes. A 1000vB transaction is 1000-4000B serialized. With 100k nodes, that's 0.1-0.4GB
- If the going rate for ec2 bandwidth is 10c/GB, that's like 1-4c per kvB of transaction data
- Then a 1000vB transaction should pay at least 4c
- $0.04 USD is 40 satoshis at 100k USD/BTC
- Baking in some margin for changes in USD/BTC conversion rate, number of nodes (and thus bandwidth), and commercial service costs, I think 50-100 satoshis is on the conservative end but in the right ballpark
- At least 97% of the recent sub-1sat/vB transactions would be accepted with a new threshold of 0.1sat/vB: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33106#issuecomment-3156213089
List of feerates that are changed and why:
- min relay feerate: significant conversion rate changes, see above
- incremental relay feerate: should follow min relay feerate, see above
- block minimum feerate: shouldn’t be above min relay feerate, otherwise the node accepts transactions it will never mine. I've knocked it down to the bare minimum of 1sat/kvB. Now that we no longer have coin age priority (removed in v0.15), I think we can leave it to the `CheckFeeRate` policy rule to enforce a minimum entry price, and the block assembly code should just fill up the block with whatever it finds in mempool.
List of feerates that are not changed and why:
- dust feerate: this feerate cannot be changed as flexibly as the minrelay feerate. A much longer record of low feerate transactions being mined is needed to motivate a decrease there.
- maxfeerate (RPC, wallet): I think the conversion rate is relevant as well, but out of scope for this PR
- minimum feerate returned by fee estimator: should be done later. In the past, we've excluded new policy defaults from fee estimation until we feel confident they represent miner policy (e.g. #9519). Also, the fee estimator itself doesn't have support for sub-1sat/vB yet.
- all wallet feerates (mintxfee, fallbackfee, discardfee, consolidatefeerate, WALLET_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE, etc.): should be done later. Our standard procedure is to do wallet changes at least 1 release after policy changes.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791
gmaxwell:
ACK ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791
jsarenik:
Tested ACK ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791
darosior:
ACK ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791
ajtowns:
ACK ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791
davidgumberg:
crACK ba84a25dee
w0xlt:
ACK ba84a25dee
caesrcd:
reACK ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791
ismaelsadeeq:
re-ACK ba84a25deec0b3b9b94ee51b373e715fec995791
Tree-SHA512: b4c35e8b506b1184db466551a7e2e48bb1e535972a8dbcaa145ce3a8bfdcc70a8807dc129460f129a9d31024174d34077154a387c32f1a3e6831f6fa5e9c399e
exFAT is known to cause corruption on macOS. See #28552.
Therefore we should warn when using this fs format for either the blocks
or data directories on macOS.
Co-authored-by: l0rinc <pap.lorinc@gmail.com>
f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f doc: Fix typo in files.md (Ryan Ofsky)
f5cf0b1ccc8fd426135809a8a4becdae2d797bb5 bitcoin wrapper: improve help output (Ryan Ofsky)
c810b168b89dc07017e9feaec1a8746a449a60b1 doc: Add description of installed files to files.md (Ryan Ofsky)
94ffd01a0294afbe045f1b17a77e4a3caf21e674 doc: Add release notes describing libexec/ binaries (Ryan Ofsky)
cd97905ebc564b8b095099a28d1d5437951927c4 cmake: Move internal binaries from bin/ to libexec/ (Ryan Ofsky)
Pull request description:
This change moves binaries that are not typically invoked directly by users from the `bin/` directory to the `libexec/` directory in CMake installs and binary releases. The goal of the PR is to introduce a distinction between internal and external binaries so starting with #31802, we can use IPC to implement features in new binaries without adding those binaries to the CLI. The change also helps reduce clutter in `bin/`, making it easier for users to identify useful tools to run. Summary of changes:
- For **source builds** (i.e. developer builds) — There are no changes.
- For **source installs** (i.e. `cmake --install` result) — `test_bitcoin`, `test_bitcoin-qt`, and `bench_bitcoin` are installed in `${CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH}/libexec` instead of `${CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH}/bin`, so they are no longer on the system `PATH`. However, they can still be invoked from the `libexec/` directory, or from the CLI as `bitcoin test`, `bitcoin test-gui`, and `bitcoin bench`, respectively.
- For **binary releases** — Since `test_bitcoin` is the only test binary enabled in releases, the only change is moving `test_bitcoin` from `bin/` to `libexec/`.
<details><summary>Details</summary>
<p>
The table below shows the install location of each binary after this change, and the availability of each binary.
| Binary | Location | Availability | Change |
|----------------------|--------------|----------------------|-------------------------------|
| `bitcoin` | `bin/` | 📦 Binary release (since #31375) | Unchanged |
| `bitcoin-cli` | `bin/` | 📦 Binary release | Unchanged |
| `bitcoind` | `bin/` | 📦 Binary release | Unchanged |
| `bitcoin-qt` | `bin/` | 📦 Binary release | Unchanged |
| `bitcoin-tx` | `bin/` | 📦 Binary release | Unchanged |
| `bitcoin-util` | `bin/` | 📦 Binary release | Unchanged |
| `bitcoin-wallet` | `bin/` | 📦 Binary release | Unchanged |
| `bench_bitcoin` | `libexec/` | 🛠 Source build only | Moved from `bin/` |
| `bitcoin-chainstate` | `libexec/` | 🛠 Source build only | Newly installed (was built) |
| `bitcoin-gui` | `libexec/` | 🛠 Source build only (until #31802) | Moved from `bin/` |
| `bitcoin-node` | `libexec/` | 🛠 Source build only (until #31802) | Moved from `bin/` |
| `test_bitcoin` | `libexec/` | 📦 Binary release | Moved from `bin/` |
| `test_bitcoin-qt` | `libexec/` | 🛠 Source build only | Moved from `bin/` |
</p>
</details>
---
This PR is part of the [process separation project](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28722).
ACKs for top commit:
l0rinc:
re-ACK f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f
Sjors:
re-ACK f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f
achow101:
ACK f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f
janb84:
re ACK f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f
BrandonOdiwuor:
Tested ACK f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f
hodlinator:
re-ACK f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f
willcl-ark:
utACK f49840dd902cd9b14b6aadb431b16a4aeb719c3f
Tree-SHA512: 858a2e1a53db11ee3c5c759bfdeea566f242b9ce5e8a898fa435222e41662b8184577c0dc2c4c058294b4de41d8cb3ba3e5d24c748c280efa4a3f84e3ec4344d
c0642e558a02319ade33dc1014e7ae981663ea46 [fuzz] fix latency score check in txorphan_protected (glozow)
3d4d4f0d92d42809e74377e4380abdc70f74de5d scripted-diff: rename "ann" variables to "latency_score" (monlovesmango)
3b924489238220710326e9031c7aaa0d606c9064 [doc] comment fixups for orphanage changes (glozow)
1384dbaf6d0bfcdb05f97e1e3cb3d5e498bee505 [config] emit warning for -maxorphantx, but allow it to be set (glozow)
b10c55b298d4d2b7dddfecdbeb0edc624b8e6eb2 fix up TxOrphanage lower_bound sanity checks (glozow)
cfd71c67043a2a46950fd3f055afbe4a93922f75 scripted-diff: rename TxOrphanage outpoints index (glozow)
edb97bb3f151600f00c94a2732d2595446011295 [logging] add logs for inner loop of LimitOrphans (glozow)
8a58d0e87d70580ae47da228e2f88cd53c40c675 scripted-diff: rename OrphanTxBase to OrphanInfo (glozow)
cc50f2f0df6e6e2cc9b9aeb3c3c8e1c78fa5be1d [cleanup] replace TxOrphanage::Size() with CountUniqueOrphans (glozow)
ed24e016969098c486f413f4f57dcffe35241785 [optimization] Maintain at most 1 reconsiderable announcement per wtxid (Pieter Wuille)
af7402ccfa7f19177b5f422f596a3ab2bd1e9633 [refactor] make TxOrphanage keep itself trimmed (glozow)
d1fac25ff3c3ac090b68e370efc6dd9374b6ad3b [doc] 31829 release note (glozow)
Pull request description:
Followup to #31829:
- Release notes
- Have the orphanage auto-trim itself whenever necessary (and test changes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2169508690
- Reduce duplicate reconsiderations by keeping track of which txns are already reconsiderable so we only mark it for reconsideration for 1 peer at a time https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#issuecomment-3001627814
- Rename `OrphanTxBase` to `OrphanInfo`
- Get rid of `Size()` method by replacing all calls with `CountUniqueOrphans`
- Rename outpoints index since they point to wtxids, not iterators https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#discussion_r2205557613
- Add more logging in the `LimitOrphans` inner loop to make it easy to see which peers are being trimmed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#issuecomment-3074385460
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK c0642e558a02319ade33dc1014e7ae981663ea46
marcofleon:
Nice, ACK c0642e558a02319ade33dc1014e7ae981663ea46
Tree-SHA512: f298eae92cf906ed5e4f15a24eeffa7b9e620bcff457772cd77522dd9f0b3b183ffc976871b1b0e6fe93009e64877d518e53d4b9e186e0df58fc16d17f6de90a
ea17a9423fb431a86d36927b02d3624f654fd867 [doc] release note for relaxing requirement of all unconfirmed parents present (glozow)
12f48d5ed302e92a334dbe971c66df467d402655 test: add chained 1p1c propagation test (Greg Sanders)
525be56741cff5f89d596b8a0c44df00f2209bcb [unit test] package submission 2p1c with 1 parent missing (glozow)
f24771af0581e8117bd638227469e37cc69c5103 relax child-with-unconfirmed-parents rule (glozow)
Pull request description:
Broadens the package validation interface, see #27463 for wider context.
On master, package rules include that (1) the package topology must be child-wth-parents (2) all of the child's unconfirmed parents must be present. This PR relaxes the second rule, leaving the first rule untouched (there are plans to change that as well, but not here).
Original motivation for this rule was based on the idea that we would have a child-with-unconfirmed-parents package relay protocol, and this would verify that the peer provided the "correct" package. For various reasons, we're not planning on doing this. We could potentially do this for ancestor packages (with a similar definition that all UTXOs to make the tx valid are available in this package), but it's also questionable whether it's useful to enforce this.
This rule gets in the way of certain usage of 1p1c package relay currently. If a transaction has multiple parents, of which only 1 requires a package CPFP, this rule blocks the package from relaying. Even if all the non-low-feerate parents are already in mempool, when the p2p logic submits the 1p1c package, it gets rejected for not meeting this rule.
ACKs for top commit:
ishaanam:
re-utACK ea17a9423fb431a86d36927b02d3624f654fd867
instagibbs:
ACK ea17a9423fb431a86d36927b02d3624f654fd867
Tree-SHA512: c2231761ae7b2acea10a96735e7a36c646f517964d0acb59bacbae1c5a1950e0223458b84c6d5ce008f0c1d53c1605df0fb3cd0064ee535ead006eb7c0fa625b
c6e2c31c55123cc97b4400bcbf3c37a39b067a22 rpc: unhide waitfor{block,newblock,blockheight} (Sjors Provoost)
0786b7509acd7e160345eea5fc25acd3c795d01c rpc: add optional blockhash to waitfornewblock (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
The `waitfornewblock` is inherently racy as the tip may have changed since the last RPC call, and can even change during initial processing of this call.
Add an optional `blockhash` argument so the caller can specify their current tip. Return immediately if our tip is different.
I've made it fail if `LookupBlockIndex` fails. This should never happen if the user got the block hash from our RPC in the first place.
Finally, the `waitfor{block,newblock,blockheight}` RPC methods are no longer hidden in `help`:
- the changes in #30409 ensured these methods _could_ work in the GUI
- #31785 removed the guards that prevented GUI users from using them
- this PR makes `waitfornewblock` reliable
So there's no more reason to hide them.
ACKs for top commit:
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK c6e2c31c55123cc97b4400bcbf3c37a39b067a22
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK c6e2c31c55123cc97b4400bcbf3c37a39b067a22. Just rebased and tweaked documentation since last review.
glozow:
utACK c6e2c31c55123cc97b4400bcbf3c37a39b067a22
Tree-SHA512: 84a0c94cb9a2e4449e7a395cf3dce1650626bd852e30e0e238a1aafae19d57bf440bfac226fd4da44eaa8d1b2fa4a8c1177b6c716235ab862a72ff5bf8fc67ac
5888b4a2a5566c64141b78a0e7660a166ec99775 doc: add note for watch-only wallet migration (rkrux)
Pull request description:
This was suggested in a previous PR #31423.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 5888b4a2a5566c64141b78a0e7660a166ec99775
brunoerg:
reACK 5888b4a2a5566c64141b78a0e7660a166ec99775
jonatack:
ACK 5888b4a2a5566c64141b78a0e7660a166ec99775
Tree-SHA512: 96e51eda30a1f31cfd82ae3296ca97c9236599b18e19086dbde3a908f6fe66af8f2de7aa147bdb9ebccb2059c809a25ddfb0c23da57e1a84a35b62ca0a44e3c3
fa45ccc15dfc52e798da62548dc43d1bd7889c9a doc: Add legacy wallet removal release notes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This spans over several pulls, so add a single note for all of them.
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
lgtm ACK fa45ccc15dfc52e798da62548dc43d1bd7889c9a
achow101:
ACK fa45ccc15dfc52e798da62548dc43d1bd7889c9a
pablomartin4btc:
ACK fa45ccc15dfc52e798da62548dc43d1bd7889c9a
janb84:
re ACK fa45ccc15dfc52e798da62548dc43d1bd7889c9a
Tree-SHA512: e753cc3afbd66a88099ff62c2591aa31d32d784098e433e392c20a8dfd40d5c85807e955b264a287c3778d68605cd7022278886a43cd1635c080d563c88fc0cc
c5c1960f9350d6315cadbdc95fface5f85f25806 doc: Add release notes for changes in RPCs (pablomartin4btc)
90fd5acbe57edb219a5dcbdc1095e11ae5398da5 rpc, test: Fix error message in getdescriptoractivity (pablomartin4btc)
39fef1d203678291020aa1adb2e420a117f86169 test: Add missing logging info for each test (pablomartin4btc)
53ac704efd668f7d4ad74158e628023c9a34141f rpc, test: Fix error message in unloadwallet (pablomartin4btc)
1fc3a8e8e7ae4698ac5cd5292a7e7e37097d37ce rpc, test: Add EnsureUniqueWalletName tests (pablomartin4btc)
b635bc0896294af5afa1b18a35f307dfae441bb8 rpc, util: Add EnsureUniqueWalletName (pablomartin4btc)
Pull request description:
Currently, `unloadwallet` RPC call fails with a JSON parsing error when no `wallet_name` argument is provided. This behavior is misleading because the error originates from a low-level JSON type mismatch, rather than clearly indicating that the wallet name or RPC endpoint (`-rpcwallet=...`) is missing. Also, found out that the [issue](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13111#issuecomment-398831543) was noticed during its implementation but never addressed.
In addition, I've verified all RPC commands calls finding that `getdescriptoractivity` had the same problem, but related to the array input types (blockhashes & descriptors), so I've corrected that RPC as well. For consistency I've added the missing logging info for each test case in `test/functional/rpc_getdescriptoractivity.py` in preparation for the new test.
**_-Before_**
```
./build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest -datadir=/tmp/btc unloadwallet
error code: -3
error message:
JSON value of type number is not of expected type string
```
```
./build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest -datadir=/tmp/btc getdescriptoractivity
error code: -3
error message:
JSON value of type null is not of expected type array
```
```
./build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest -datadir=/tmp/btc getdescriptoractivity '[]'
error code: -3
error message:
JSON value of type null is not of expected type array
```
**_-After_**
```
./build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest -datadir=/tmp/btc unloadwallet
error code: -8
error message:
Either the RPC endpoint wallet or the wallet name parameter must be provided
```
```
./build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest -datadir=/tmp/btc getdescriptoractivity
error code: -1
error message:
getdescriptoractivity ["blockhash",...] [scanobjects,...] ( include_mempool )
Get spend and receive activity associated with a set of descriptors for a set of blocks. This command pairs well with the `relevant_blocks` output of `scanblocks()`.
This call may take several minutes. If you encounter timeouts, try specifying no RPC timeout (bitcoin-cli -rpcclienttimeout=0)
Arguments:
1. blockhashes (json array, required) The list of blockhashes to examine for activity. Order doesn't matter. Must be along main chain or an error is thrown.
[
"blockhash", (string) A valid blockhash
...
]
2. scanobjects (json array, required) Array of scan objects. Every scan object is either a string descriptor or an object:
[
"descriptor", (string) An output descriptor
{ (json object) An object with output descriptor and metadata
"desc": "str", (string, required) An output descriptor
"range": n or [n,n], (numeric or array, optional, default=1000) The range of HD chain indexes to explore (either end or [begin,end])
},
...
]
3. include_mempool (boolean, optional, default=true) Whether to include unconfirmed activity
...
```
```
./build/bin/bitcoin-cli -regtest -datadir=/tmp/btc getdescriptoractivity '[]'
error code: -1
error message:
getdescriptoractivity ["blockhash",...] [scanobjects,...] ( include_mempool )
...
```
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK c5c1960f9350d6315cadbdc95fface5f85f25806
stickies-v:
re-ACK c5c1960f9350d6315cadbdc95fface5f85f25806
furszy:
ACK c5c1960f9350d6315cadbdc95fface5f85f25806
Tree-SHA512: e831ff1acbfd15d2ce3a69bb408cce94664c0b63b2aa2f4627a05c6c052241ae3b5cc238219ef1b30afb489a4a3f4c3030e2168b0c8f08b4d20805d050d810f5
This rule was originally introduced along with a very early proposal for
package relay as a way to verify that the "correct"
child-with-unconfirmed-parents package was provided for a transaction,
where correctness was defined as all of the transactions unconfirmed
parents. However, we are not planning to introduce a protocol where
peers would be asked to send these packages.
This rule has downsides: if a transaction has multiple parents but only
1 that requires package CPFP to be accepted, the current rule prevents
us from accepting that package. Even if the other parents are already in
mempool, the p2p logic will only submit the 1p1c package, which fails
this check. See the test in p2p_1p1c_network.py
b1a8ac07e91dd1d305fcbc16ea931d60e46c0055 doc: Release note for removed watchonly parameters and results (Ava Chow)
15710869e19e707ef03492c55030dcefa16269d8 wallet: Remove ISMINE_WATCH_ONLY (Ava Chow)
4439bf4b41a6997d4d965f00a8c40efa9cf6895b wallet, spend: Remove fWatchOnly from CCoinControl (Ava Chow)
1337c72198a7d32935431d64e9e58c12f9003abc wallet, rpc: Remove watchonly from RPCs (Ava Chow)
e81d95d435744e48615973dc22acce1a291bd20d wallet: Remove watchonly balances (Ava Chow)
d20dc9c6aae089ab926fd135febd69a8f0744a18 wallet: Wallets without private keys cannot grind R (Ava Chow)
9991f49c38c084967ca66791d838c99b42f000eb test: Watchonly wallets should estimate larger size (Ava Chow)
Pull request description:
Descriptor wallets do not use the watchonly behavior as it is not possible to mix watchonly and non-watchonly in a descriptor wallet. With legacy wallets now removed, all of the watchonly handling and reporting code is no longer needed. This PR removes watchonly options and results from the RPCs and the handling of watchonly things from the wallet's internals.
With all of the watchonly things removed, ISMINE_WATCH_ONLY is removed as well.
Split from #32523
Depends on #32594 for tests that are easier to read
ACKs for top commit:
Eunovo:
ACK b1a8ac07e9
maflcko:
re-ACK b1a8ac07e91dd1d305fcbc16ea931d60e46c0055 🌈
rkrux:
ACK b1a8ac07e91dd1d305fcbc16ea931d60e46c0055
furszy:
light code review ACK b1a8ac07e91dd1d305fcbc16ea931d60e46c0055
Tree-SHA512: bc87f37a13294f7208991be8f93899b49e5bdf87c70e0f66d9c4cb09c03be6c202320406f27e9a35aa2f57319d19a3f0c07d5e5ddbc97c7edab165b1656d6612
0e9f409db3b7b08aef75ce39765b018b69cc8e9d doc: clarify that the "-j N" goes after the "--build build" part (Salvatore Ingala)
Pull request description:
I was surprised that something like `cmake -j 4 --build build` doesn't work, so this might help others to not make the same mistake.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 0e9f409db3b7b08aef75ce39765b018b69cc8e9d
hebasto:
ACK 0e9f409db3b7b08aef75ce39765b018b69cc8e9d.
stickies-v:
ACK 0e9f409db3b7b08aef75ce39765b018b69cc8e9d
pablomartin4btc:
ACK 0e9f409db3b7b08aef75ce39765b018b69cc8e9d
theStack:
ACK 0e9f409db3b7b08aef75ce39765b018b69cc8e9d
brunoerg:
ACK 0e9f409db3b7b08aef75ce39765b018b69cc8e9d
w0xlt:
ACK 0e9f409db3
Tree-SHA512: 5283f87a68abae4905b773e73aa4529f52d2302d804165b560b22f300a449d8ce1ae3194d2e1fe69be6f7e4d279dd32b8ef0daa18af4ac6a76a51f5abc39ec63
dd99cedc0bfe7d7eee0f543bb27dab005c426c66 doc: add `/spenttxouts` to REST-interface.md (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Seems like adding the `spenttxouts` endpoint to the REST interface description was forgotten in #32540.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
lgtm ACK dd99cedc0bfe7d7eee0f543bb27dab005c426c66
pablomartin4btc:
ACK dd99cedc0bfe7d7eee0f543bb27dab005c426c66
Tree-SHA512: 9b1da9cbab914664217cc7f8792092e672518ec7f79c7670eb1c54ef94e6cd52b139e1051035ce33ad62b7b74a169e3abc793d1804760787a11a0dc269d26402
45b1d39757668939b03b27401c324a938ef0cd8d doc: Add fetching single PRs from upstream (will)
Pull request description:
Current recommendation is to add a new remote fetching all PRs, but this is resource-intensive.
Document a better way to fetch a single PR, and to update a PR which has been force-pushed.
Follows up on a [comment from 32774](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32774#discussion_r2156728913)
ACKs for top commit:
pablomartin4btc:
re-ACK 45b1d39
achow101:
ACK 45b1d39757668939b03b27401c324a938ef0cd8d
janb84:
re ACK 45b1d39757668939b03b27401c324a938ef0cd8d
theStack:
ACK 45b1d39757668939b03b27401c324a938ef0cd8d
Tree-SHA512: 3af02aa1335fd941538fabaa527bcfa92907dc6c272e72bc37ca38211b8aeebf32dd1837f976308058360ed1364fec749b49213f2b8bc4e35542da55a7bd30e1
6967e8e8abbc35ac98e8e3745a8bbed56e77526f add more bad p2p ports (Jameson Lopp)
Pull request description:
Add a few more ports used by extremely well adopted services that require authentication and really ought not be used by bitcoin nodes for p2p traffic.
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
utACK 6967e8e8abbc35ac98e8e3745a8bbed56e77526f
l0rinc:
ACK 6967e8e8abbc35ac98e8e3745a8bbed56e77526f
glozow:
ACK 6967e8e8abbc35ac98e8e3745a8bbed56e77526f
Tree-SHA512: bbe86aef2be9727338712ded8f90227f5d12f633ab5d324c8907c01173945d1c4d9899e05565f78688842bbf5ebb010d22173969e4168ea08d4e33f01fe9569d
