Implement Taproot Sighash #1002
Conversation
sanket1729
force-pushed
the
taphash
branch
3 times, most recently
from
fde71a0
to
4a7685a
Compare
|
The test seems flaky |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For reference failed logs: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6028890096271360?logs=ci#L3628
|
No diff between |
sanket1729
force-pushed
the
taphash
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f2452a3
to
afa015d
Compare
sanket1729
force-pushed
the
taphash
branch
2 times, most recently
from
40f50e8
to
f1ac1be
Compare
|
I think, as long as our test suite passes, there is no need to add new |
| ss += struct.pack("<i", txTo.nVersion) | ||
| ss += struct.pack("<I", txTo.nLockTime) | ||
| if in_type != SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY: | ||
| ss += sha256(b"".join(struct.pack("B", ((not i.assetIssuance.isNull()) >> 7) + (i.m_is_pegin >> 6)) for i in txTo.vin)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These should be << rather than >> (same below)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One more reason to write tests :)
|
e7b4bba looks great! Just needs some more tests and we're good to go |
| @@ -405,6 +405,14 @@ def serialize(self): | |||
| r += self.nInflationKeys.serialize() | |||
| return r | |||
|
|
|||
| # serialization used in taproot sighash | |||
| def tap_sighash_serialize(self): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you rename this (and change the comment) to indicate that it is specifically for asset issuance data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is inside the class CAssetIssuance, so it is implicit that it is for asset issuance?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
edited the name to taphash_asset_issuance_serialize
| # | ||
| # Test use of assetdir to locally label assets. | ||
| # Test listissuances returns a list of all issuances or specific issuances based on asset hex or asset label. | ||
| # |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great! Can you add it to test_runner.py so it gets run in CI?
…ash_pegins_issuances.py 1c883db test: update `createrawtransaction` call in feature_taphash_pegins_issuances.py (Andrew Poelstra) Pull request description: Should describe the outputs as an array rather than as an object. (The old behavior has long been deprecated but was eliminated entirely in #900.) Fixes functional tests which were broken in master by simultaneous merge of #1002 and #900. ACKs for top commit: stevenroose: utACK 1c883db Tree-SHA512: f7963c34e7006a25ac5515e30966ef46777fa22d6125d219345731aef603e5f3179fc316134d59694af8e753f7cb48c825ad3434f2bceda0a10b8d5a52c32cd3
| { | ||
| CHashWriter ss(SER_GETHASH, 0); | ||
| for (const auto& txin : txTo.vin) { | ||
| ss << (unsigned char) ((!txin.assetIssuance.IsNull() << 7) + (txin.m_is_pegin << 6)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider instead using (COutPoint::OUTPOINT_ISSUANCE_FLAG >> 24) and (COutPoint::OUTPOINT_PEGIN_FLAG >> 24) (you can compose the flags and shift the result if you prefer).
I believe | is prefered over + for flag composition.
| // Data about the input/prevout being spent | ||
| assert(execdata.m_annex_init); | ||
| const bool have_annex = execdata.m_annex_present; | ||
| const uint8_t spend_type = (ext_flag << 1) + (have_annex ? 1 : 0); // The low bit indicates whether an annex is present. | ||
| ss << spend_type; | ||
| if (input_type == SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY) { | ||
| ss << (unsigned char) ((!tx_to.vin[in_pos].assetIssuance.IsNull() << 7) + (tx_to.vin[in_pos].m_is_pegin << 6)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably abstract this flag composition into its own function as it occurs in two places.
| ss << tx_to.vin[in_pos].prevout; | ||
| ss << cache.m_spent_outputs[in_pos]; | ||
| ss << cache.m_spent_outputs[in_pos].nAsset; | ||
| ss << cache.m_spent_outputs[in_pos].nValue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe comment here that we are not using the nonce and maybe even why we aren't?
|
@roconnor-blockstream Addressed in #1023 |
2612017 Address post merge feedback for Taphash (sanket1729) Pull request description: Addressing the review by @roconnor-blockstream on #1002 . ACKs for top commit: apoelstra: ACK 2612017 Tree-SHA512: 62121ba33cf1fccda75cd2402c22799ccee437ba64575e6f5561b0aa1c571b6d94f3981fb4c1260a8c2848a26e1790d770364ade2af3edb5a98be29c23d6e0a2
This introduces Taproot wallet support. I fixed all the merge conflicts and ensured that the tests pass, but this is still using the old sighash (before Russell/Sanket/I redid it) so is not actually production ready. Will be fixed when we bring Elements #1002 in.
This forward-ports the new Taproot sighash but does not fix a couple 22-blocked TODOs related to the MissingDataBehavior enum. Should be fixed in a followup commit. One nontrivial change I had to make was feeding the genesis hash to SignTransaction (the "global" one in script/sign.cpp) so that it could correctly compute the sighash at signing time.
No description provided.