Some wallets may only specify the `non_witness_utxo` for a PSBT input.
If that's the case, BDK should still be able to sign.
This was pointed out in the discussion of #734
138acc3b7d Change `populate_test_db` to not return empty input (wszdexdrf)
d6e1dd1040 Change CI to add test using ledger emulator (wszdexdrf)
76034772cb Add a custom signer for hardware wallets (wszdexdrf)
Pull request description:
Also adds a new test in CI for building and testing on a virtual
hardware wallet.
### Description
This PR would enable BDK users to sign transactions using a hardware wallet. It is just the beginning hence there are no complex features, but I hope not for long.
I have added a test in CI for building a ledger emulator and running the new test on it. The test is similar to the one on bitcoindevkit/rust-hwi.
### Notes to the reviewers
The PR is incomplete (and wouldn't work, as the rust-hwi in `cargo.toml` is pointing to a local crate, temporarily) as a small change is required in rust-hwi (https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/rust-hwi/pull/42).
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 138acc3b7d
Tree-SHA512: 54337f06247829242b4dc60f733346173d957de8e9f8b80beb91304d679cfb4e0e4db722c967469265a5b6ede2bd641ba5c089760391c671995dc30de37897de
08668ac462 Set the db sync height (rajarshimaitra)
Pull request description:
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
Fixes#719
Previously we weren't setting the db sync height in populate_test_db
macro even when current height is provided.. This creates a bug that
get_funded_wallet will return 0 balance.
This PR fixes the populate_test_db macro and updates tests which were
previously dependent on the unsynced wallet behavior.
### Notes to the reviewers
<!-- In this section you can include notes directed to the reviewers, like explaining why some parts
of the PR were done in a specific way -->
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 08668ac462
Tree-SHA512: 1dcc968e4b3551e916b450c5ff2fab6636083f104cc982eb3f7602c624382434e0170d9f0c0a356e6c9c5f834eebe5cb1365b37ef73d7b4ef15d652a364dc2ab
Lightning denotes transaction fee rate
sats / 1000 weight units and sats / 1000 vbytes.
Here we add support for creating BDK fee rate from
lightning fee rate. We also move all FeeRate test to
types.rs and rename as_sat_vb to as_sat_per_vb.
Previously we weren't setting the db sync height in populate_test_db
macro even when current height is provided.. This creates a bug that
get_funded_wallet will return 0 balance.
This PR fixes the populate_test_db macro and updates tests which were
previously dependent on the unsynced wallet behavior.
7b1ad1b629 Verify signatures after signing (Scott Robinson)
Pull request description:
### Description
Verify signatures after signing
As per [BIP-340, footnote 14][fn]:
> Verifying the signature before leaving the signer prevents random or
> attacker provoked computation errors. This prevents publishing invalid
> signatures which may leak information about the secret key. It is
> recommended, but can be omitted if the computation cost is prohibitive.
[fn]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki#cite_note-14
### Notes to the reviewers
How do we test this?
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [ ] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
re-ACK 7b1ad1b629
Tree-SHA512: 7319db1f8cec2fcfe4ac443ab5728893f9fb6133b33331b35ec6910662c45de8a7cdcf80ac1f3bb435815e914ccf639682a5c07ff0baef42605bf044a34a8232
As per [BIP-340, footnote 14][fn]:
> Verifying the signature before leaving the signer prevents random or
> attacker provoked computation errors. This prevents publishing invalid
> signatures which may leak information about the secret key. It is
> recommended, but can be omitted if the computation cost is prohibitive.
[fn]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki#cite_note-14
Our costant for the P2WPKH satisfaction size was wrong: in
7ac87b8f99 we added 1 WU for the script
sig len - but actually, that's 4WU! This resulted in
P2WPKH_SATISFACTION_SIZE being equal to 109 instead of 112.
This also adds a comment for better readability.
9d85c9667f Fix the early InsufficientFunds error in the branch and bound (Alekos Filini)
Pull request description:
### Description
We were wrongly considering the sum of "effective value" (i.e. value -
fee cost) when reporting an early "insufficient funds" error in the
branch and bound coin selection.
This commit fixes essentially two issues:
- Very high fee rates could cause a panic during the i64 -> u64
conversion because we assumed the sum of effective values would never
be negative
- Since we were comparing the sum of effective values of *all* the UTXOs
(even the optional UTXOs with negative effective value) with the target
we'd like to reach, we could in some cases error and tell the user we
don't have enough funds, while in fact we do! Since we are not required
to spend any of the optional UTXOs, so we could just ignore the ones
that *cost us* money to spend and excluding them could potentially
allow us to reach the target.
There's a third issue that was present before and remains even with this
fix: when we report the "available" funds in the error, we are ignoring
UTXOs with negative effective value, so it may look like there are less
funds in the wallet than there actually are.
I don't know how to convey the right message the user: if we actually
consider them we just make the "needed" value larger and larger (which
may be confusing, because if the user asks BDK to send 10k satoshis, why
do we say that we actually need 100k?), while if we don't we could report
an incorrect "available" value.
### Notes to the reviewers
I'm opening this as a draft before adding tests because I want to gather some feedback on the available vs needed error reporting. I personally think reporting a reasonable "needed" value is more important than the "available", because in a wallet app I would expect this is the value that would be shown to the user.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
utACK 9d85c9667f
Tree-SHA512: 9a06758cba61ade73198f35b08070987d5eb065e01750ce62409f86b37cd0b0894640e9f75c8b2c26543c0da04e3f77bd397fab540e789f221661aae828db224
We were wrongly considering the sum of "effective value" (i.e. value -
fee cost) when reporting an early "insufficient funds" error in the
branch and bound coin selection.
This commit fixes essentially two issues:
- Very high fee rates could cause a panic during the i64 -> u64
conversion because we assumed the sum of effective values would never
be negative
- Since we were comparing the sum of effective values of *all* the UTXOs
(even the optional UTXOs with negative effective value) with the target
we'd like to reach, we could in some cases error and tell the user we
don't have enough funds, while in fact we do! Since we are not required
to spend any of the optional UTXOs, so we could just ignore the ones
that *cost us* money to spend and excluding them could potentially
allow us to reach the target.
There's a third issue that was present before and remains even with this
fix: when we report the "available" funds in the error, we are ignoring
UTXOs with negative effective value, so it may look like there are less
funds in the wallet than there actually are.
I don't know how to convey the right message the user: if we actually
consider them we just make the "needed" value larger and larger (which
may be confusing, because if the user asks BDK to send 10k satoshis, why
do we say that we actually need 100k?), while if we don't we could report
an incorrect "available" value.
7fdacdbad4 doc: Document that list_transactions() might return unsorted txs, show how to sort them if needed (w0xlt)
Pull request description:
This PR documents that `list_transactions()` might return unsorted transaction and shows how to sort them if needed.
Closes#518.
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
re-ACK 7fdacdbad4
Tree-SHA512: 83bec98e1903d6dc6b8933e8994cb9d04aad059cee8a7b8e1e3a322cf52511364b36d0cd6be1c8cb1fd82c67f8be5a262bbd2c76e30b24eb4097c30f38aa8b10
Before this commit `fee_amount` and `amount_needed` were passed as independent
parameters. From the perspective of coin selection algorithms, they are always
used jointly for the same purpose, to create a coin selection with a total
effective value greater than it's summed values.
This commit removes the abstraction that the use of the two parameter
introduced by consolidating both into a single parameter, `target_amount`, who
carries their values added up.
419dc248b6 test: Document `test_bump_fee_add_input_change_dust` (Daniela Brozzoni)
632dabaa07 test: Check tx feerate with longer signatures (Daniela Brozzoni)
2756411ef7 test: Reproduce #660 conditions (Daniela Brozzoni)
50af51da5a test: Fix P2WPKH_FAKE_WITNESS_SIZE (Daniela Brozzoni)
ae919061e2 Take into account the segwit tx header when... ...selecting coins (Daniela Brozzoni)
7ac87b8f99 TXIN_BASE_WEIGHT shouldn't include the script len (Daniela Brozzoni)
ac051d7ae9 Calculate fee amount after output addition (Daniela Brozzoni)
00d426b885 test: Check that the feerate is never below... ...the requested one in assert_fee_rate (Daniela Brozzoni)
42fde6d457 test: Check fee_amount in assert_fee_rate (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
This PR mainly fixes two bugs:
1. TXIN_BASE_WEIGHT wrongly included the `script_len` (Fixes#160)
2. We wouldn't take into account the segwit header in the fee calculation, which could have resulted in a transaction with a lower feerate than the requested one
3. In tests we used to push 108 bytes on the witness as a fake signature, but we should have pushed 106 instead
I also add a test to reproduce the conditions of #660, to check if it's solved. Turns out it's been solved already in #630, but if you're curious about what the bug was, here it is: https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/660#issuecomment-1196436776
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 419dc248b6
Tree-SHA512: c7b55342eac440a3607a16b94560cb9c08c4805c853432adfda8e21c5177f85d5a8afe0e7e61140e92c8f10934332459c6234fc5f1509ea699d97b1d04f030c6
We would previously always try to sign with the taproot internal
key, and try to sign all the script leaves hashes.
Instead, add the `sign_with_tap_internal_key` and `TapLeaveOptions`
parameters, to be able to specify if we should sign with the internal
key, and exactly which leaves we should sign.
Fixes#616
Issue #660 has been fixed by 32ae95f463,
when we moved the change calculation inside the coin selection.
This commit just adds a test to make sure that the problem is fixed.
We would previously push 108 bytes on a P2WPKH witness
to simulate signature + pubkey. This was wrong: we should push
106 bytes instead.
The max satisfaction size for a P2WPKH is 112 WU:
elements in witness (1 byte, 1WU) + OP_PUSH (1 byte, 1WU) +
pk (33 bytes, 33 WU) + OP_PUSH (1 byte, 1WU) + signature and sighash
(72 bytes, 72 WU) + scriptsig len (1 byte, 4WU)
We should push on the witness pk + signature and sighash. This is 105
WU. Since we push just once instead of twice, we add 1WU for the OP_PUSH
we are omitting.
...selecting coins
We take into account the larger segwit tx header for every
transaction, not just the segwit ones. The reason for this is that
we prefer to overestimate the fees for the transaction than
underestimating them - the former might create txs with a slightly
higher feerate than the requested one, while the latter might
create txs with a slightly lower one - or worse, invalid (<1 sat/vbyte)!
We would before calculate the TXIN_BASE_WEIGHT as prev_txid (32 bytes) +
prev_vout (4 bytes) + sequence (4 bytes) + script_sig_len (1 bytes), but
that's wrong: the script_sig_len shouldn't be included, as miniscript
already includes it in the `max_satisfaction_size` calculation.
Fixes#160
We would previously calculate the fee amount in two steps:
1. Add the weight of the empty transaction
2. Add the weight of each output
That's unnecessary: you can just use the weight of the transaction
*after* the output addition. This is clearer, but also avoids a
rare bug: if there are many outputs, adding them would cause the
"number of outputs" transaction parameter lenght to increase, and we
wouldn't notice it.
This might still happen when adding the drain output - this
commit also adds a comment as a reminder.
The former way to compute and create change was inside `create_tx`, just after
performing coin selection.
It blocked the opportunity to have an "ensemble" algorithm to decide between
multiple coin selection algorithms based on a metric, like Waste.
Now, change isn't created inside `coin_select` but the change amount and the
possibility to create change is decided inside the `coin_select` method. In
this way, change is associated with the coin selection algorithm that generated
it, and a method to decide between them can be implemented.
Previously, electrum-based blockchain implementations only synced for
`scriptPubKey`s that are already cached in `Database`.
This PR introduces a feedback mechanism, that uses `stop_gap` and the
difference between "current index" and "last active index" to determine
whether we need to cache more `scriptPubKeys`.
The `WalletSync::wallet_setup` trait now may return an
`Error::MissingCachedScripts` error which contains the number of extra
`scriptPubKey`s to cache, in order to satisfy `stop_gap` for the next call.
`Wallet::sync` now calls `WalletSync` in a loop, cacheing inbetween
subsequent calls (if needed).
2c02a44586 Test: No address reuse for single descriptor (志宇)
Pull request description:
### Description
Just a simple new test.
This test is to ensure there are no regressions when we later change
internal logic of `Wallet`. A single descriptor wallet should always get
a new address with `AddressIndex::New` even if we alternate grabbing
internal/external keychains.
I thought of adding this during work on #647
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
tACK 2c02a44586
rajarshimaitra:
tACK 2c02a44586
Tree-SHA512: d065ae0979dc3ef7c26d6dfc19c88498e4bf17cc908e4f5677dcbf62ee59162e666cb00eb87b96d4c2557310960e3677eec7b6d907a5a4860cb7d2d74dba07b0
92b9597f8b Rename `set_current_height` to `current_height` (Alekos Filini)
Pull request description:
### Description
Usually we don't have any prefix except for methods that can *add* to a list or replace the list entirely (e.g. `add_recipients` vs `set_recipients`)
I missed this during review of #611
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
utACK 92b9597f8b - I'm sorry I didn't notice it!
Tree-SHA512: 3391068b2761bcd04d740ef41f9e772039fca7bc0e0736afcbc582ec74b6c91eb155d9e09dd7a07462eec29e32ac86e41ba339d9a550af3f754164cab6bdbf61
This test is to ensure there are no regressions when we later change
internal logic of `Wallet`. A single descriptor wallet should always get
a new address with `AddressIndex::New` even if we alternate grabbing
internal/external keychains.
e3a17f67d9 add try_finalize to SignOptions (KaFai Choi)
c2e4ba8cbd add remove_partial_sigs to SignOptions (KaFai Choi)
Pull request description:
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
This PR is to add 2 keys(`try_finalize` and `remove_partial_sigs`) in `SignOptions`. See this issue for detail https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/612
### Notes to the reviewers
~I found the negative naming of these 2 new keys `do_not_finalize` and `do_not_remove_partial_sigs` are a bit confusing(like most negative named paremeter/variable). Should we actually change it back to positive naming(`do_finalize` and `do_remove_partial_sigs`)?~
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### New Features:
* [x] I've added tests for the new feature
* [x] I've added docs for the new feature
* [x] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [ ] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [ ] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
notmandatory:
ReACK e3a17f67d9
Tree-SHA512: 781b31d3ecf0bcd605206c0481fd5de3125f1c8ff18a463dbf4c821e5557847f7d70a3fe8618e100fb89f4f6899655ac0efa3593f77f915ad5bcb7e558bb2a7a
5d00f82388 test that BDK won't add unconf inputs when fee bumping (Daniela Brozzoni)
98748906f6 test: fix populate_test_db conf calculation (Daniela Brozzoni)
1d9fdd01fa Remove wrong TODO comment in build_fee_bump (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
Closes#144
### Notes to reviewers
#144 is describing a bug that doesn't seem to happen in BDK master anymore (BDK not respecting BIP125 rule 2). This PR just adds a test to check that the bug is fixed.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK 5d00f82388
Tree-SHA512: 95833f3566f9716762884d65f3f656346482e45525a3e92efa86710b9f574fdd9af7d235f1f425e4298d6ff380db9af60d1d2008ccde2588d971757db2d136b8
populate_test_db would previously give back a transaction with N + 1
confirmations when you asked for N.
This commit also fixes test_spend_coinbase, which would improperly
ask for a transaction with 0 confirmations instead of 1.
The proposed solution is bad for privacy as well.
Let's call the initial change output, which is normally shrink when you
fee bump, change#1, and the extra output aforementioned change#2 (as,
in this case, it's going to be a change output as well). If you add change#2
you might not revel change#1, but you're still revealing change#2.
You're not improving your privacy, and you're wasting money in fees.
e85aa247cb Avoid using immature coinbase inputs (Daniela Brozzoni)
0e0d5a0e95 populate_test_db accepts a `coinbase` param (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
With this PR we start considering how many confirmations a coinbase has. If it's not mature yet, we don't use it for building transactions.
Fixes#413
### Notes to the reviewers
This PR is based on #611, review that one before reviewing this 😄
007c5a78335a3e9f6c9c28a077793c2ba34bbb4e adds a coinbase parameter to `populate_test_db`, to specify if you want the db to be populated with immature coins. This is useful for `test_spend_coinbase`, but that's probably going to be the only use case.
I don't think it's a big deal to have a test function take an almost_always_useless parameter - it's not an exposed API, anyways. But, if you can come up with a different way of implementing `test_spend_coinbase` that doesn't require 007c5a78335a3e9f6c9c28a077793c2ba34bbb4e, even better! I looked for it for a while, but other than duplicating the whole `populate_test_db` code, which made the test way harder to comprehend, I didn't find any other way.
### Checklists
#### All Submissions:
* [x] I've signed all my commits
* [x] I followed the [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
* [x] I ran `cargo fmt` and `cargo clippy` before committing
#### Bugfixes:
* [ ] This pull request breaks the existing API
* [x] I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing
* [x] I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK e85aa24
Tree-SHA512: 30f470c33f9ffe928500a58f821f8ce445c653766459465eb005031ac523c6f143856fc9ca68a8e1f23a485c6543a9565bd889f9557c92bf5322e81291212a5f
