07aba8dd21 functional test: ensure confirmed utxo being sourced for 2nd chain (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
The test could fail/stop testing what we want if non-confirmed utxos become sourced through some internal change to `MiniWallet`; better to just fetch confirmed explicitly.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 07aba8dd21
ismaelsadeeq:
utACK 07aba8dd21
theStack:
ACK 07aba8dd21
Tree-SHA512: 66795fdf881139ed91bde0f8239a46bd9bc70bb311fa97c0e2b5537e1fd2a1fd36bf3a225fc77b9695deb835a9d6d29879aa1e05ea5054b9a33a400e199da014
The behavior is not new, but this rule exits earlier than before.
Previously, a carve out could have been granted in PreChecks() but then
nullified in PackageMempoolChecks() when CheckPackageLimits() is called
with the default limits.
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).
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-
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.
substitutes "for x in range(N):" by "for _ in range(N):"
indicates to the reader that a block is just repeated N times, and
that the loop counter is not used in the body
Accept RBF bumps of single transactions (ie which conflict with one
transaction) even when that transaction is a member of a package
which is currently at the package limit iff the new transaction
does not add any additional mempool dependencies from the original.
This could be made a bit looser in the future and still be safe,
but for now this fixes the case that a transaction which was
accepted by the carve-out rule will not be directly RBF'able.
This implements the proposed policy change from [1], which allows
certain classes of contract protocols involving revocation
punishments to use CPFP. Note that some such use-cases may still
want some form of one-deep package relay, though even this alone
may greatly simplify some lightning fee negotiation.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html
Hennadii Stepanov