Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis #11739

sdaftuar · 2017-11-20T20:31:45Z

As discussed at the IRC meeting back in October (https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2017-10-12/?msg=92231929&page=2), I had looked into the feasibility of enforcing P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS back to the genesis block.

The P2SH change is pretty straightforward -- there was only one historical block on mainnet that violated the rule, so I carved out an exception to it, similar to the way we have exceptions for the BIP30 violators.

The segwit change is not entirely as clear. The code changes themselves are relatively straightforward: we can just always turn on SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS whenever P2SH is active. However conceptually, this amounts to splitting up BIP141 into two parts, the part that implements new script rules, and the part that handles witness commitments in blocks.

Arguably though the script rules are really defined in BIP 143 anyway, and so this really amounts to backdating BIP 143 -- script rules for v0 segwit outputs -- back to genesis. So maybe conceptually this isn't so bad...

I don't feel strongly about this change in either direction; I started working on it because I was searching for a way to simplify the way we understand and implement the consensus rules around segwit, but I'm not yet sure whether I think this achieves anything toward that goal.

ping @TheBlueMatt

sdaftuar · 2017-11-20T20:36:37Z

Forgot to flag this: there is one mainnet block that violated P2SH, and one testnet block as well. For now I carved out both, but perhaps we could consider migration to a new testnet (4?) instead and drop the testnet exception? Seems like it might be cleaner to have a new testnet that always has P2SH and segwit from genesis.... Does anyone think this would be worth proposing?

maflcko · 2017-11-21T11:31:09Z

src/validation.cpp

+        fStrictPayToScriptHash = false;
+    }
+
+    unsigned int flags = fStrictPayToScriptHash ? SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH : SCRIPT_VERIFY_NONE;

    // Start enforcing P2SH (BIP16)
    if (pindex->nHeight >= consensusparams.BIP16Height) {


fixup nit: in commit 3a76e3c962516cdf7d577aa3dcbe0251b94e5355: You probably meant to use if (fStrictPayToScriptHash) { flags |= SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH; }, as BIP16Height was removed and thus fails to compile.

TheBlueMatt · 2017-11-22T00:10:25Z

Concept ACK. At a code level not so interesting, I suppose (except for maybe the P2SH backdating), but it's generally a nice property for us to, over time, enforce soft forks like SegWit universally.

…

On November 20, 2017 12:32:05 PM PST, Suhas Daftuar ***@***.***> wrote: As discussed at the IRC meeting back in October (https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2017-10-12/?msg=92231929&page=2), I had looked into the feasibility of enforcing P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS back to the genesis block. The P2SH change is pretty straightforward -- there was only one historical block on mainnet that violated the rule, so I carved out an exception to it, similar to the way we have exceptions for the BIP30 violators. The segwit change is not entirely as clear. The code changes themselves are relatively straightforward: we can just always turn on SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS whenever P2SH is active. However conceptually, this amounts to splitting up BIP141 into two parts, the part that implements new script rules, and the part that handles witness commitments in blocks. Arguably though the script rules are really defined in BIP 143 anyway, and so this really amounts to backdating BIP 143 -- script rules for v0 segwit outputs -- back to genesis. So maybe conceptually this isn't so bad... I don't feel strongly about this change in either direction; I started working on it because I was searching for a way to simplify the way we understand and implement the consensus rules around segwit, but I'm not yet sure whether I think this achieves anything toward that goal. ping @TheBlueMatt You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: #11739 -- Commit Summary -- * Use P2SH consensus rules for all blocks * Separate NULLDUMMY enforcement from SEGWIT enforcement * Always enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS with P2SH * [qa] Remove some pre-activation segwit tests * scripted-diff: rename IsWitnessEnabled -> IsWitnessCommitmentEnabled -- File Changes -- M src/chainparams.cpp (3) M src/consensus/params.h (2) M src/miner.cpp (2) M src/net_processing.cpp (8) M src/validation.cpp (49) M src/validation.h (5) M src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp (2) M test/functional/p2p-segwit.py (2) M test/functional/segwit.py (8) -- Patch Links -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11739.patch https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11739.diff -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #11739

sipa · 2017-11-22T01:44:29Z

The code changes here don't look as bad as I would have expected. I'd prefer to encapsulate the exception block hashes in chainparams, though.

gmaxwell · 2017-11-23T01:36:45Z

Concept ACK! as far as testnet, restarting with a new testnet would be fine, but there are a bunch of very interesting test cases in testnet we should consider extracting. One possibility would be to instrument the codebase to call the gprof things to record branch coverage data at each block; an then make a list of testnet blocks that increased cover. Seems like a real pain though.

sdaftuar · 2017-12-05T22:21:27Z

Nits addressed.

TheBlueMatt

utACK ad3e97a

TheBlueMatt · 2017-12-08T18:24:32Z

src/validation.cpp

+    // BIP16 didn't become active until Apr 1 2012
+    // However, only one historical block violated the P2SH rules, so for simplicity, always leave P2SH
+    // on except for the one violating block.
+    if (!(pindex->phashBlock != nullptr && (*(pindex->phashBlock) == consensusparams.BIP16Exception))) {


Why not assert pindex->phashBlock? No properly-constructed CBlockIndex should have that unset, no?

It's unset when invoked via TestBlockValidity() (eg for mining).

Ah, that sounds like a bug in TBV, but that's for a separate PR, I suppose.

Yes, please, I always found checks to pindex->phashBlock == nullptr ugly and expensive to maintain documented (perhaps we can repeat the "pindex->phashBlock can be null if called by CreateNewBlock/TestBlockValidity" comment from the beginning and unify it with the comment for fEnforceBIP30, to more easily delete them all later when they're not needed). There's the assert you want below, just needs to be moved to the top once the special cases are dealt with more explicitly.
But, yeah, that's for a separate PR.

laanwj · 2017-12-20T16:32:06Z

Concept ACK

ryanofsky

utACK ad3e97a

ryanofsky · 2018-01-10T22:17:46Z

src/validation.cpp

+    // BIP16 didn't become active until Apr 1 2012
+    // However, only one historical block violated the P2SH rules, so for simplicity, always leave P2SH
+    // on except for the one violating block.
+    if (!(pindex->phashBlock != nullptr && (*(pindex->phashBlock) == consensusparams.BIP16Exception))) {


In commit "Use P2SH consensus rules for all blocks"

Maybe check BIP16Exception.IsNull() to be a little more strict. Could also remove unnecessary nesting and negatives:

if (consensusparams.BIP16Exception.IsNull() || pindex->phashBlock == nullptr || *pindex->phashBlock != consensusparams.BIP16Exception)

ryanofsky · 2018-01-10T22:20:32Z

test/functional/p2p-segwit.py

@@ -1905,7 +1905,7 @@ def run_test(self):
        self.test_unnecessary_witness_before_segwit_activation()
        self.test_witness_tx_relay_before_segwit_activation()
        self.test_block_relay(segwit_activated=False)
-        self.test_p2sh_witness(segwit_activated=False)
+        #self.test_p2sh_witness(segwit_activated=False)


In commit "[qa] Remove some pre-activation segwit tests"

Should actually remove

ryanofsky · 2018-01-10T22:20:39Z

test/functional/segwit.py

-        self.log.info("Verify unsigned bare witness txs in versionbits-setting blocks are valid before the fork")
-        self.success_mine(self.nodes[2], wit_ids[NODE_2][WIT_V0][1], False) #block 428
-        self.success_mine(self.nodes[2], wit_ids[NODE_2][WIT_V1][1], False) #block 429
+        # TODO: verify spending a segwit v0 output is invalid before the fork


In commit "[qa] Remove some pre-activation segwit tests"

Note: TODO

I don't understand this comment. What does 'before the fork' mean if segwit is active since genesis?

gmaxwell · 2018-01-11T20:49:00Z

Tested ACK

sdaftuar · 2018-01-22T20:04:56Z

Addressed @ryanofsky's comments. However I think I will need to rebase in order to for the new test I wrote to work...

jtimon

This needs a BIP IMO.
Concept ACK. if the segwit case is not clear yet, perhaps it should be left for later (in fact, I would prefer the 2 things in 2 different PRs either way, preferrably one on top of the other [perhaps open one with only p2sh and rebase this one of top of the new one], but all between the parenthesis is just PR bikeshedding).

utACK individual commits df7fad0 d32bcd9

jtimon · 2018-01-23T02:43:21Z

src/validation.cpp

+    // BIP16 didn't become active until Apr 1 2012
+    // However, only one historical block violated the P2SH rules, so for simplicity, always leave P2SH
+    // on except for the one violating block.
+    if (!(pindex->phashBlock != nullptr && (*(pindex->phashBlock) == consensusparams.BIP16Exception))) {


Yes, please, I always found checks to pindex->phashBlock == nullptr ugly and expensive to maintain documented (perhaps we can repeat the "pindex->phashBlock can be null if called by CreateNewBlock/TestBlockValidity" comment from the beginning and unify it with the comment for fEnforceBIP30, to more easily delete them all later when they're not needed). There's the assert you want below, just needs to be moved to the top once the special cases are dealt with more explicitly.
But, yeah, that's for a separate PR.

sdaftuar · 2018-01-23T17:44:53Z

Rebased and fixed the last commit to work with latest master. Previous version of these commits is at https://github.com/sdaftuar/bitcoin/commits/11739.1

sdaftuar · 2018-01-23T17:51:43Z

@jtimon Agreed -- I sent an email to the bitcoin-dev list recently with a link to the draft BIP text.

jnewbery · 2018-01-23T22:18:43Z

test/functional/segwit.py

-        self.log.info("Verify unsigned bare witness txs in versionbits-setting blocks are valid before the fork")
-        self.success_mine(self.nodes[2], wit_ids[NODE_2][WIT_V0][1], False) #block 428
-        self.success_mine(self.nodes[2], wit_ids[NODE_2][WIT_V1][1], False) #block 429
+        # TODO: verify spending a segwit v0 output is invalid before the fork


I don't understand this comment. What does 'before the fork' mean if segwit is active since genesis?

jnewbery · 2018-01-23T22:26:28Z

src/net_processing.cpp

@@ -857,7 +857,7 @@ void PeerLogicValidation::NewPoWValidBlock(const CBlockIndex *pindex, const std:
        return;
    nHighestFastAnnounce = pindex->nHeight;

-    bool fWitnessEnabled = IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, Params().GetConsensus());
+    bool fWitnessEnabled = IsWitnessCommitmentEnabled(pindex->pprev, Params().GetConsensus());


Could also change the name of the local variable here:

fWitnessEnabled -> witness_commitment_enabled

jnewbery · 2018-01-23T22:26:45Z

src/chainparams.cpp

        consensus.BIP34Height = 227931;
        consensus.BIP34Hash = uint256S("0x000000000000024b89b42a942fe0d9fea3bb44ab7bd1b19115dd6a759c0808b8");
+        consensus.BIP16Exception = uint256S("0x00000000000002dc756eebf4f49723ed8d30cc28a5f108eb94b1ba88ac4f9c22");


nit: prefer the BIP constants in numeric order (ie BIP 16 above BIP 34). Same for params.h below.

jnewbery · 2018-01-23T23:20:13Z

test/functional/p2p-segwit.py

+
+        assert(len(self.utxo))
+
+        # Create two outputs, a p2wsh and p2sh-p2wsh


comment says p2sh-p2wsh, but the second output below is just a p2sh as far as I can tell.

strange. The P2SH output can't be spent either. If I change the test_witness_block() call to a test_transaction_acceptance() call below, I see the following log:

(mandatory-script-verify-flag-failed (Operation not valid with the current stack size) (code 16))

Fixed -- I forgot to stick the p2sh redeem script in the scriptsig (and also inadvertently made this a p2sh, rather than p2sh-p2wsh).

jnewbery · 2018-01-23T23:25:31Z

utACK up to 4e2b90d.

I don't think the final commit adds any value and can be removed from this PR.

sdaftuar · 2018-01-25T16:38:31Z

Github thought this needed to be rebased, so I did, though there were no conflicts to be resolved.
Original unsquashed version is https://github.com/sdaftuar/bitcoin/commits/11739.2.

jnewbery · 2018-01-25T17:34:44Z

test/functional/feature_segwit.py

-        self.log.info("Verify unsigned bare witness txs in versionbits-setting blocks are valid before the fork")
-        self.success_mine(self.nodes[2], wit_ids[NODE_2][WIT_V0][1], False) #block 428
-        self.success_mine(self.nodes[2], wit_ids[NODE_2][WIT_V1][1], False) #block 429
+        # TODO: verify spending a segwit v0 output is invalid before the fork


I wouldn't bother adding this comment, which you're just going to remove in a later commit. I think you can also remove the comment above.

sdaftuar · 2018-01-25T17:45:59Z

I decided to remove the scripted-diff commit, because in retrospect I think the existing function name, IsWitnessEnabled, is fine.

Addressed nits from @jnewbery and @ryanofsky and squashed. Old version is: https://github.com/sdaftuar/bitcoin/commits/11739.3

This commit moves P2SH activation back to the genesis block, with a hardcoded exception for the one historical block in the chain that violated this rule.

This is in preparation for enforcing SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from the genesis block.

This is in preparation for always enforcing SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS.

Also updates the comments for an existing test, that now should be rewritten. Includes changes suggested by John Newbery.

sdaftuar · 2018-04-13T14:36:01Z

Needed rebase.

jnewbery · 2018-04-13T15:47:47Z

Tested ACK 8b56fc0

Travis failure was unrelated p2p_compactblocks.py flakiness. I've restared the job.

It'd be great to get this (and then #12360) in before v0.17.

sdaftuar · 2018-04-16T15:28:34Z

Tests are passing now.

TheBlueMatt · 2018-04-17T19:44:05Z

non-test-changes-re-utACK 8b56fc0 (though I miss the s/IsWitnessEnabled/IsWitnessCommitmentEnabled/ scripted-diff change).

maflcko · 2018-04-19T18:01:35Z

utACK 8b56fc0

@TheBlueMatt

…om genesis 8b56fc0 [qa] Test that v0 segwit outputs can't be spent pre-activation (Suhas Daftuar) ccb8ca4 Always enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS with P2SH (Suhas Daftuar) 5c31b20 [qa] Remove some pre-activation segwit tests (Suhas Daftuar) 95749a5 Separate NULLDUMMY enforcement from SEGWIT enforcement (Suhas Daftuar) ce65018 Use P2SH consensus rules for all blocks (Suhas Daftuar) Pull request description: As discussed at the IRC meeting back in October (https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2017-10-12/?msg=92231929&page=2), I had looked into the feasibility of enforcing P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS back to the genesis block. The P2SH change is pretty straightforward -- there was only one historical block on mainnet that violated the rule, so I carved out an exception to it, similar to the way we have exceptions for the BIP30 violators. The segwit change is not entirely as clear. The code changes themselves are relatively straightforward: we can just always turn on SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS whenever P2SH is active. However conceptually, this amounts to splitting up BIP141 into two parts, the part that implements new script rules, and the part that handles witness commitments in blocks. Arguably though the script rules are really defined in BIP 143 anyway, and so this really amounts to backdating BIP 143 -- script rules for v0 segwit outputs -- back to genesis. So maybe conceptually this isn't so bad... I don't feel strongly about this change in either direction; I started working on it because I was searching for a way to simplify the way we understand and implement the consensus rules around segwit, but I'm not yet sure whether I think this achieves anything toward that goal. ping @TheBlueMatt Tree-SHA512: 73551d4a983eb9792c7ac67f56005822528ac4d1fd52c27cee6d305ebee953f69687ef4ddee8bdc0fec77f77e6b5a9d669750793efee54c076533a095e233042

…or TBV Summary: 9c5a4a6 Stop special-casing phashBlock handling in validation for TBV (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: There is no reason to do this, really, we already have "ignore PoW" flags. Motivated by bitcoin/bitcoin#11739 (comment) Tree-SHA512: 37cb1ae5b11c9e8ed7a679bb07ad3b119a2a014744b26d197d67ba21beb19fe6815271df935e40f7c7bd5f2e4d7ae4dad7bd4d00fa230a8d789f37e9de31a769 Backport of Core PR 11880 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11880/files Test Plan: ninja check make check test_runner.py Reviewers: deadalnix, Fabien, #bitcoin_abc Reviewed By: Fabien, #bitcoin_abc Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D2898

…or TBV Summary: 9c5a4a6ed Stop special-casing phashBlock handling in validation for TBV (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: There is no reason to do this, really, we already have "ignore PoW" flags. Motivated by bitcoin/bitcoin#11739 (comment) Tree-SHA512: 37cb1ae5b11c9e8ed7a679bb07ad3b119a2a014744b26d197d67ba21beb19fe6815271df935e40f7c7bd5f2e4d7ae4dad7bd4d00fa230a8d789f37e9de31a769 Backport of Core PR 11880 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11880/files Test Plan: ninja check make check test_runner.py Reviewers: deadalnix, Fabien, #bitcoin_abc Reviewed By: Fabien, #bitcoin_abc Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D2898

db1cbcc [RPC] Remove deprecated addmultisigaddress return format (John Newbery) cb28a0b [RPC] Remove deprecated createmultisig object (John Newbery) ed45c82 [tests] Remove test for deprecated createmultsig option (John Newbery) d066a1c [rpc] Remove deprecated getmininginfo RPC option (John Newbery) c6f09c2 [rpc] remove deprecated estimatefee RPC (John Newbery) a8e437a [tests] Remove estimatefee from rpc_deprecated.py test (John Newbery) a5623b1 [tests] Remove tests for deprecated estimatefee RPC (John Newbery) d119f2e [tests] Fix style warnings in feature_fee_estimation.py (John Newbery) Pull request description: There were some RPC/RPC options deprecated in v0.16. Those can now be removed from master since v0.16 has been branched. - `estimatefee` RPC has been removed. The `feature_fee_estimation.py` test has been updated to remove the RPC, but doesn't yet have good coverage of the replacement RPC `estimatesmartfee`. Improving the test coverage should be done in a new PR. (bitcoin#11031) - the `errors` field returned by `getmininginfo` has been deprecated and replaced by a `warning` field. (bitcoin#10858) - providing addresses as inputs to `createmultisig` has been deprecated. Users should use `addmultisigaddress` instead (bitcoin#11415) - The return format from `addmultisigaddress` has changed (bitcoin#11415) `getwitnessaddress` was also deprecated in v0.16 and can be removed, but many tests are using that RPC, so it's a larger job to remove. It should be removed in a separate PR (possibly after bitcoin#11739 and bitcoin#11398 have been merged and the segwit test code tidied up) Tree-SHA512: 8ffaa5f6094131339b9e9e468e8b141de4b144697d2271efa2992b80b12eb97849ade3da8df5c1c9400ed4c04e6a029926550a3e5846d2029b644f9e84ac7124

…ation for TBV 9c5a4a6 Stop special-casing phashBlock handling in validation for TBV (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: There is no reason to do this, really, we already have "ignore PoW" flags. Motivated by bitcoin#11739 (comment) Tree-SHA512: 37cb1ae5b11c9e8ed7a679bb07ad3b119a2a014744b26d197d67ba21beb19fe6815271df935e40f7c7bd5f2e4d7ae4dad7bd4d00fa230a8d789f37e9de31a769

db1cbcc [RPC] Remove deprecated addmultisigaddress return format (John Newbery) cb28a0b [RPC] Remove deprecated createmultisig object (John Newbery) ed45c82 [tests] Remove test for deprecated createmultsig option (John Newbery) d066a1c [rpc] Remove deprecated getmininginfo RPC option (John Newbery) c6f09c2 [rpc] remove deprecated estimatefee RPC (John Newbery) a8e437a [tests] Remove estimatefee from rpc_deprecated.py test (John Newbery) a5623b1 [tests] Remove tests for deprecated estimatefee RPC (John Newbery) d119f2e [tests] Fix style warnings in feature_fee_estimation.py (John Newbery) Pull request description: There were some RPC/RPC options deprecated in v0.16. Those can now be removed from master since v0.16 has been branched. - `estimatefee` RPC has been removed. The `feature_fee_estimation.py` test has been updated to remove the RPC, but doesn't yet have good coverage of the replacement RPC `estimatesmartfee`. Improving the test coverage should be done in a new PR. (bitcoin#11031) - the `errors` field returned by `getmininginfo` has been deprecated and replaced by a `warning` field. (bitcoin#10858) - providing addresses as inputs to `createmultisig` has been deprecated. Users should use `addmultisigaddress` instead (bitcoin#11415) - The return format from `addmultisigaddress` has changed (bitcoin#11415) `getwitnessaddress` was also deprecated in v0.16 and can be removed, but many tests are using that RPC, so it's a larger job to remove. It should be removed in a separate PR (possibly after bitcoin#11739 and bitcoin#11398 have been merged and the segwit test code tidied up) Tree-SHA512: 8ffaa5f6094131339b9e9e468e8b141de4b144697d2271efa2992b80b12eb97849ade3da8df5c1c9400ed4c04e6a029926550a3e5846d2029b644f9e84ac7124

…ation for TBV 9c5a4a6 Stop special-casing phashBlock handling in validation for TBV (Matt Corallo) Pull request description: There is no reason to do this, really, we already have "ignore PoW" flags. Motivated by bitcoin#11739 (comment) Tree-SHA512: 37cb1ae5b11c9e8ed7a679bb07ad3b119a2a014744b26d197d67ba21beb19fe6815271df935e40f7c7bd5f2e4d7ae4dad7bd4d00fa230a8d789f37e9de31a769

fanquake added the Validation label Nov 20, 2017

maflcko reviewed Nov 21, 2017

View reviewed changes

sdaftuar force-pushed the 2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis branch from 199573e to ad3e97a Compare December 5, 2017 22:20

TheBlueMatt reviewed Dec 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Dec 12, 2017

Stop special-casing phashBlock handling in validation for TBV #11880

Merged

ryanofsky reviewed Jan 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

maflcko mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2018

BIP90: Make buried deployments slightly more easily extensible #11426

Closed

jtimon reviewed Jan 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

sdaftuar force-pushed the 2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis branch from a76ce4c to b782474 Compare January 23, 2018 17:44

sdaftuar changed the title ~~RFC: Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis~~ Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis Jan 23, 2018

jnewbery reviewed Jan 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

sdaftuar force-pushed the 2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis branch from 42caf4d to 33203e1 Compare January 25, 2018 16:36

jnewbery reviewed Jan 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

sdaftuar force-pushed the 2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis branch from 33203e1 to 98e4af6 Compare January 25, 2018 17:44

sdaftuar force-pushed the 2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis branch from 98e4af6 to 831b8bd Compare January 25, 2018 23:33

sdaftuar and others added 5 commits April 13, 2018 09:52

Use P2SH consensus rules for all blocks

ce65018

This commit moves P2SH activation back to the genesis block, with a hardcoded exception for the one historical block in the chain that violated this rule.

Separate NULLDUMMY enforcement from SEGWIT enforcement

95749a5

This is in preparation for enforcing SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from the genesis block.

[qa] Remove some pre-activation segwit tests

5c31b20

This is in preparation for always enforcing SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS.

Always enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS with P2SH

ccb8ca4

[qa] Test that v0 segwit outputs can't be spent pre-activation

8b56fc0

Also updates the comments for an existing test, that now should be rewritten. Includes changes suggested by John Newbery.

sdaftuar force-pushed the 2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis branch from dee104d to 8b56fc0 Compare April 13, 2018 14:35

maflcko merged commit 8b56fc0 into bitcoin:master Apr 19, 2018

Bushstar mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2018

commits from bitcoin/master FeatherCoin/Feathercoin#303

Merged

sdaftuar mentioned this pull request May 9, 2018

policy: Treat segwit as always active #13120

Merged

RCasatta mentioned this pull request May 3, 2021

Fix activation heights rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoinconsensus#30

Merged

bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021


		assert(len(self.utxo))

		# Create two outputs, a p2wsh and p2sh-p2wsh

Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis #11739

Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis #11739

Uh oh!

Conversation

sdaftuar commented Nov 20, 2017

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Nov 20, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt commented Nov 22, 2017 via email

Uh oh!

sipa commented Nov 22, 2017

Uh oh!

gmaxwell commented Nov 23, 2017

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Dec 5, 2017

Uh oh!

TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jtimon Jan 23, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laanwj commented Dec 20, 2017

Uh oh!

ryanofsky left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gmaxwell commented Jan 11, 2018

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Jan 22, 2018

Uh oh!

jtimon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jtimon Jan 23, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Jan 23, 2018

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Jan 23, 2018

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jnewbery commented Jan 23, 2018

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Jan 25, 2018

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Jan 25, 2018

Uh oh!

sdaftuar commented Apr 13, 2018

jtimon Jan 23, 2018 •

edited

Loading

jtimon Jan 23, 2018 •

edited

Loading