97bc9dc7170c336e97cd756b1f07ac3c23a39626 Discourage fee sniping with nLockTime (Daniela Brozzoni)
Pull request description:
### Description
By default bdk sets the transaction's nLockTime to current_height
to prevent fee sniping.
current_height can be provided by the user through TxParams; if the user
didn't provide it, we use the last sync height, or 0 if we never synced.
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/533
### Notes to the reviewers:
If you want to know more about fee sniping: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/fee-sniping/
### 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 97bc9dc7170c336e97cd756b1f07ac3c23a39626
Tree-SHA512: e92d1ae907687d9fee44d120d790f1ebdf14b698194979e1be8433310fd5636afa63808effed12fce6091f968ec6b76b727cfee6fed54068af0a7450239fdd26
By default bdk sets the transaction's nLockTime to current_height
to discourage fee sniping.
current_height can be provided by the user through TxParams; if the user
didn't provide it, we use the last sync height, or 0 if we never synced.
Fixes#533
Before this commit, you could create a transaction with `drain_to` set
without specifying recipients, nor `drain_wallet`, nor `utxos`. What would
happen is that BDK would pick one input from the wallet and send
that one to `drain_to`, which is quite weird.
This PR restricts the usage of `drain_to`: if you want to use it as a
change output, you need to set recipients as well. If you want to send
a specific utxo to the `drain_to` address, you specify it through
`add_utxos`. If you want to drain the whole wallet, you set
`drain_wallet`. In any other case, if `drain_to` is set, we return a
`NoRecipients` error.
Fixes#620
a85ef62698eae748242f31db80fa3aabd3b2b64e fix typo (Buck Perley)
Pull request description:
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
<!-- Describe the purpose of this PR, what's being adding and/or fixed -->
just a small typo fix
### 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
ACKs for top commit:
rajarshimaitra:
ACK a85ef62698eae748242f31db80fa3aabd3b2b64e
afilini:
ACK a85ef62698eae748242f31db80fa3aabd3b2b64e
Tree-SHA512: 089de23adae62492a0b39a27c9cb8cb8afc99e5634194118681b8a9a46ff0b073558f9cd515cd4db4c9c6e6f9c813bfa4b193d4e3f9558b34ad29cbd46cf028c
Only use the old `importmulti` with Core versions that don't support
descriptor-based (sqlite) wallets.
Add an extra feature to test against Core 0.20 called `test-rpc-legacy`
d9b9b3dc464d6a9cd4157cc4135a2e7b88ce4ab3 Fix InvalidColumnIndex error (Philipp Hoenisch)
Pull request description:
This query returns 7 rows, so last row is index 6
### 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
ACKs for top commit:
danielabrozzoni:
tACK d9b9b3dc464d6a9cd4157cc4135a2e7b88ce4ab3
rajarshimaitra:
tACK d9b9b3dc464d6a9cd4157cc4135a2e7b88ce4ab3
Tree-SHA512: 8a3d8a291daa4af86a2a2eacc31f002972dd9cdb9bf300a4b09e2e015c4a967dc4fa7e925afbcce8b104a01e1d7f7c8cb0badda8e1ac5ade511681f490c719d5
This allows the signer to know the signing context precisely without
relying on heuristics on the psbt fields.
Due to the context being static, we still have to look at the PSBT when
producing taproot signatures to determine the set of leaf hashes that
the key can sign for.
35feb107ed5969720ce54a6aa76b7b2176f6c7c1 [CI] Fix cont_integration test-blockchains to run all tests (Steve Myers)
24719081511969299459d01566b0d669a7b51f7b Update CHANGELOG with warning about sqlite-db deleted wallet data (Steve Myers)
0b1a399f4e556a981bb992cc9b1d34318e260a7c Update sqlite schema with unique index for utxos, change insert_utxo to upsert (Steve Myers)
cea79872d717b395560a344cc4dd0e022c3bd9a9 Update database tests to verify set_utxo upserts (Steve Myers)
Pull request description:
### Description
This PR fixes#591 by:
1. Add sqlite `MIGRATIONS` statements to remove duplicate utxos and add unique utxos index on txid and vout.
2. Do an upsert (if insert fails update) instead of an insert in `set_utxo()`.
3. Update database::test::test_utxo to also verify `set_utxo()` doesn't insert duplicate utxos.
### Notes to the reviewers
I verified the updated `test_utxo` fails as expected before my fix and passes after the fix. I tested the new migrations using the below `bdk-cli` command and a manually updated sqlite db with duplicate utxos.
```shell
cargo run --no-default-features --features cli,sqlite-db,esplora-ureq -- wallet -w test1 --descriptor "wpkh(tpubEBr4i6yk5nf5DAaJpsi9N2pPYBeJ7fZ5Z9rmN4977iYLCGco1VyjB9tvvuvYtfZzjD5A8igzgw3HeWeeKFmanHYqksqZXYXGsw5zjnj7KM9/*)" sync
```
### 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:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [ ] I've updated `CHANGELOG.md`
#### 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:
danielabrozzoni:
utACK 35feb107ed5969720ce54a6aa76b7b2176f6c7c1 - Code looks good, but I didn't do any local test to see if the db gets wiped
Tree-SHA512: 753c7a0cfd0e803b5e12f39181d9a718791c4ce229d5072e6498db75a7008e94d447b3d0b4b0c205e7a8f127f60102e12bac2d271b8bad3a3038856bfd54e99c
Add two new traits:
- `StatelessBlockchain` is used to tag `Blockchain`s that don't have any
wallet-specic state, i.e. they can be used as-is to sync multiple wallets.
- `BlockchainFactory` is a trait for objects that can build multiple
blockchains for different descriptors. It's implemented automatically
for every `Arc<T>` where `T` is a `StatelessBlockchain`. This allows a
piece of code that deals with multiple sub-wallets to just get a
`&B: BlockchainFactory` to sync all of them.
These new traits have been implemented for Electrum, Esplora and RPC
(the first two being stateless and the latter having a dedicated
`RpcBlockchainFactory` struct). It hasn't been implemented on the CBF
blockchain, because I don't think it would work in its current form
(it throws away old block filters, so it's hard to go back and rescan).
This is the first step for #549, as BIP47 needs to sync many different
descriptors internally.
It's also very useful for #486.
e7a56a92685ce1948d2ec7232fccd7e072d4abb3 Change wallet::get_funded_wallet to return Wallet<AnyDatabase> (Steve Myers)
Pull request description:
### Description
Change testing function `wallet::get_funded_wallet` to return `Wallet<AnyDatabase>` instead of `Wallet<MemoryDatabase>`. This will allow us to use this function for testing `bdk-ffi` which only works with `Wallet<AnyDatabase>`.
### Notes to the reviewers
This is required to complete https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk-ffi/pull/148.
### 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:
* [ ] I've added tests for the new feature
* [ ] I've added docs for the new feature
* [ ] 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:
afilini:
ACK e7a56a92685ce1948d2ec7232fccd7e072d4abb3
Tree-SHA512: 47b53ab6dcee63fc7b24666d3cf9a0ad832782081dd2fe92961c8c9b4c302df90db96b0b518af71d6cbc85319434971219100f8cedb35ce7212d944db29a4295
6931d0bd1f044bf73c0cb760c0eb0be19aea8de1 add private function select_sorted_utxso to be resued by multiple CoinSelection impl (KaFai Choi)
545beec743412717895d0ba5d32ccd9aac68f4a6 add OldestFirstCoinSelection (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 `OldestFirstCoinSelection`. See this issue for detail https://github.com/bitcoindevkit/bdk/issues/120
<!-- Describe the purpose of this PR, what's being adding and/or fixed -->
### Notes to the reviewers
Apologize in advance if the quality of this PR is too low.(I am newbie in both bitcoin wallet and rust).
While this PR seemed very straight-forward to me in the first glance, it's actually a bit more complicated than I thought as it involves calling DB get the blockheight before sorting it.
The current implementation should be pretty naive but I would like to get some opinion to see if I am heading to a right direction first before working on optimizations like
~~1. Avoiding calling DB for optional_utxos if if the amount from required_utxos are already enough.~~ Probably not worth to do such optimization to keep code simpler?
### 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:
afilini:
ACK 6931d0bd1f044bf73c0cb760c0eb0be19aea8de1
Tree-SHA512: d297bbad847d99cfdd8c6b1450c3777c5d55bc51c7934f287975c4d114a21840d428a75a172bfb7eacbac95413535452b644cab971efb8c0b5caf0d06d6d8356
c752ccbddeaa5ae441cc74a1386c1e412a447104 Expose bip39::Error (志宇)
Pull request description:
<!-- You can erase any parts of this template not applicable to your Pull Request. -->
### Description
Expose `bip39::Error` (fixes#581 )
### Notes to the reviewers
I am aware that the `bip39` module plans to be rewritten (as per #561 ), however this seems like a rather straightforward and quick change that may be useful in the short/mid term.
### Checklists
#### Bugfixes:
* [x] Expose `bip39::Error`
ACKs for top commit:
afilini:
ACK c752ccbddeaa5ae441cc74a1386c1e412a447104
Tree-SHA512: 98b7ac1ba88aed07d9160830ee80496c32d531c15ada0e9b50a97f0883fbfced22fa83a7c7f8366aadb7e7a667d8a63dde869d31cc375206d277e55b2ec3089d
The `WalletExport` type can still be used as an alias to
`FullyNodedExport` but it has been marked as deprecated and will be
removed in the next release.
This lets us use a tuple of (generated mnemonic, optional passphrase) as
a `DerivableKey` directly, without extracting the inner mnemonic from the
`GeneratedKey` wrapper. For BIP39 keys specifically it doesn't make much
difference because the mnemonic format doesn't encode the network, but in
general this is not the case and having a consistent API will make it
harder for people to make mistakes.
To explain why we should not extract the key: some key formats (like
BIP32 extended keys) are network-specific, meaning that if somebody
tries to use a Testnet key on a Mainnet BDK wallet, it won't work.
However, when we generate a new key we would like to be able to use that
key on any network, but we need to set some kind of placeholder for the
`network` field in the structure. This is why (or at least one of the
reasons why) we wrap the key in the `GeneratedKey` struct: we keep track
of the "valid_networks" separately, which means that even if we set our
BIP32 xprv to be a "Mainnet" key, once we go try creating a wallet with
that key BDK is smart enough to understand that `GeneratedKey`s have
their own separate set of valid networks and it will use that set to
validate whether the key can be used in the wallet or not.
