It's unclear what the motivation for increasing the orphan pool is, and
it seems that this not needed at all. None of these tests involve orphan
transactions explicitly, and if they would occur occasionally, there is
no good reason to prefer a value of 1000 over the default of 100 (see
DEFAULT_MAX_ORPHAN_TRANSACTIONS).
Review note: The changes are complete, because self.options.descriptors
is set to None in parse_args (test_framework.py).
A value of None implies -disablewallet, see the previous commit.
So if a call to add_wallet_options is missing, it will lead to a test
failure when the wallet is compiled in.
Our RBF policy is different from the rules specified in BIP125. For
example, the BIP does not mention Rule 6, and our Rule 4 uses the
(configurable) incremental relay feerate (distinct from the
minimum relay feerate). Those interested in our policy should refer to
doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md instead. These rules may also
continue to diverge with package RBF and other RBF improvements. Keep
references to the BIP125 signaling wrt sequence numbers, since that is
still correct and widely used. It is helpful to refer to this as "BIP125
signaling" since it is unambiguous and succint, especially if we have
multiple ways to signal replaceability in the future.
The rule numbers in doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md correspond
largely to those of BIP 125, so we can still refer to them like "Rule 5."
4c9666bd73 Mention `mempoolfullrbf` in policy/mempool-replacements.md (Antoine Riard)
aae66ab43d Update getmempoolinfo RPC with `mempoolfullrbf` (Antoine Riard)
3e27e31727 Introduce `mempoolfullrbf` node setting. (Antoine Riard)
Pull request description:
This is ready for review.
Recent discussions among LN devs have brought back on the surface concerns about the security of multi-party funded transactions against pinnings attacks and other mempool-based nuisances. The lack of full-rbf transaction-relay topology connected to miners open the way to cheap and naive DoS against multi-party funded transactions (e.g coinjoins, dual-funded channels, on-chain DLCs, ...) without solutions introducing an overhead cost or centralization vectors afaik . For more details, see [0].
This PR implements a simple `fullrbf` setting, where the node always allows transaction replacement, ignoring BIP125 opt-in flag. The default value of the setting stays **false**, therefore opt-in replacement is still the default Bitcoin Core replacement policy. Contrary to a previous proposal of mine and listening to feedbacks collected since then [1], I think this new setting simply offers more flexibility in a node transaction-relay policy suiting one's application requirements, without arguing a change of the default behavior.
I [posted](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020557.html) on the ML to invite operators with a bitcoin application sensitive to full-rbf (e.g dual-funded LN channels service providers) or mempool researchers to join a bootstrapped full-rbf activated peers network for experimentation and learning. If people have strong opinions against the existence of such full-rbf transaction-relay network, I'm proposing to express them on the future thread.
[0] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-May/003033.html
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-June/019074.html
Follow-up suggestions :
- soft-enable opt-in RBF in the wallet : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353#issuecomment-1154918789
- p2p discovery and additional outbound connection to full-rbf peers : https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25353#issuecomment-1156044401
- match the code between RPC, wallet and mempool about disregard of inherited signaling : #22698
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
reACK 4c9666bd73
glozow:
ACK 4c9666bd73, a few nits which are non-blocking.
w0xlt:
ACK 4c9666bd73
Tree-SHA512: 9e288bf22e06a9808804e58178444ef1830c3fdd42fd8a7cd7ffb101f8f586e08b000679be407d63ca76a56f7216227b368ff630c81f3fac3243db1a1202ab1c
This new node policy setting enables to accept replaced-by-fee
transaction without inspection of the replaceability signaling
as described in BIP125 "explicit signaling".
If turns on, the node mempool accepts transaction replacement
as described in `policy/mempool-replacements.md`.
The default setting value is `false`, implying opt-in RBF
is enforced.
fafee78188 rpc: Return incrementalrelayfee in getmempoolinfo (MacroFake)
Pull request description:
Seems odd to return other policy info, but not the incremental relay fee
ACKs for top commit:
1440000bytes:
ACK fafee78188
w0xlt:
Code Review ACK fafee78188
jarolrod:
tACK fafee78188
Tree-SHA512: faad0af6c039b8257acbeac913bc5dcdb2ea2db304c95e52601536c8de60eb1186e9fbb4a64a68adf476605f18022aeda16a5644a0d7912592b0977e4c029638
This testcase exercises rule 5 of BIP-125 (no more than 100 evictions
due to replacement) without having to test under non-default mempool
parametmers.
If no `from_node` parameter is passed explicitely to the
`create_self_transfer` method, the test node passed in the course
of creating the MiniWallet instance is used. This seems to
be the main use-case in most of the current functional
tests, i.e. in many instances the calls can be shortened.
The test currently leads to a failure if in general wallet
support is compiled, but the library for the specified type
(BDB/SQLite) is not, i.e. if started with the
`--legacy-wallet` parameter, but bitcoind is compiled
without BDB support.
Fix this by checking if the specified wallet type (BDB for
legacy wallet, SQLite for descriptor wallet) is available.
Also move the helper `is_specified_wallet_compiled()` to the
test framework's class BitcoinTestFramework first, so it can
be reused.
The previous diff touched most files in ./test/, so bump the headers to
avoid having to touch them again for a bump later.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
./contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./test/
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
With this new method, outputs to an arbitrary scriptPubKey/amount can
be created. Note that the implementation was already present in the
test feature_rbf.py and is just moved to the MiniWallet interface, in
order to enable other tests to also use it.
f680d27155 test: use MiniWallet for make_utxo helper in feature_rbf.py (Sebastian Falbesoner)
0f27524602 test: scale amounts in test_doublespend_tree down by factor 10 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
d1e2481274 test: scale amounts in test_doublespend_chain down by factor 10 (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR aims to further increase MiniWallet usage in the functional test feature_rbf.py by using it in the `make_utxo(...)` helper, which is the only part that needs a wallet for most sub-tests. In order to do that, the amounts for the utxos have to be scaled down in two sub-tests first (`test_doublespend_chain` and `test_doublespend_tree`, see first two commits), since we need amounts passed to `make_utxo` than can be funded by only one input. For creating UTXOs with a value of 50 BTC, we'd need to implement a method for consolidating multiple utxos into one first, which seems to be overkill.
Note that after this PR's change, there is only one sub-test left (`test_rpc`) that needs the wallet compiled into bitcoind.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK f680d27155🦐
Tree-SHA512: 46c8c245086a9e79855c4ede2f8f412333cf2658136805196b203b3567c89398d77fcb80715c0bb72fdc84331cc67544b2fdc259193a3adcb2fc36e147c26fce
This is done in order to prepare the make_utxo helper to use MiniWallet,
which only supports creating transactions with single inputs, i.e. we
need to create amounts small enough to be funded by coinbase transactions
(50 BTC).
This is done in order to prepare the make_utxo helper to use MiniWallet,
which only supports creating transactions with single inputs, i.e. we
need to create amounts small enough to be funded by coinbase transactions
(50 BTC).
2eb0eeda39 validation: document lack of inherited signaling in RBF policy (Antoine Riard)
906b6d9da6 test: Extend feature_rbf.py with no inherited signaling (Antoine Riard)
Pull request description:
Contrary to BIP125 or other full-node implementation (e.g btcd), Bitcoin Core's mempool policy doesn't implement inherited signaling.
This PR documents our mempool behavior on this and add a test demonstrating the case.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 2eb0eeda39
benthecarman:
ACK 2eb0eeda39
Tree-SHA512: d41453d3b49bae3c1eb532a968f43bc047084913bd285929d4d9cba142777ff2be38163d912e28dfc635f4ecf446de68effad799c6e71be52f81e83410c712fb
1) add a new sane "address" field (for outputs that have an
identifiable address, which doesn't include bare multisig)
2) with -deprecatedrpc: leave "reqSigs" and "addresses" intact
(with all weird/wrong behavior they have now)
3) without -deprecatedrpc: drop "reqSigs" and "addresses" entirely,
always.
Ava Chow