Skip to content

Conversation

@sipa
Copy link
Member

@sipa sipa commented Sep 26, 2017

This implements a minimum viable implementation of SegWit wallet support, based on top of #11389, and includes part of the functionality from #11089.

Two new configuration options are added:

  • -addresstype, with options legacy, p2sh, and bech32. It controls what kind of addresses are produced by getnewaddress, getaccountaddress, and createmultisigaddress.
  • -changetype, with the same options, and by default equal to -addresstype, that controls what kind of change is used.

All wallet private and public keys can be used for any type of address. Support for address types dependent on different derivation paths will need a major overhaul of how our internal detection of outputs work. I expect that that will happen for a next major version.

The above also applies to imported keys, as having a distinction there but not for normal operations is a disaster for testing, and probably for comprehension of users. This has some ugly effects, like needing to associate the provided label to importprivkey with each style address for the corresponding key.

To deal with witness outputs requiring a corresponding redeemscript in wallet, three approaches are used:

  • All SegWit addresses created through getnewaddress or multisig RPCs explicitly get their redeemscripts added to the wallet file. This means that downgrading after creating a witness address will work, as long as the wallet file is up to date.
  • All SegWit keys in the wallet get an implicit redeemscript added, without it being written to the file. This means recovery of an old backup will work, as long as you use new software.
  • All keypool keys that are seen used in transactions explicitly get their redeemscripts added to the wallet files. This means that downgrading after recovering from a backup that includes a witness address will work.

These approaches correspond to solutions 3a, 1a, and 5a respectively from https://gist.github.com/sipa/125cfa1615946d0c3f3eec2ad7f250a2. As argued there, there is no full solution for dealing with the case where you both downgrade and restore a backup, so that's also not implemented.

dumpwallet, importwallet, importmulti, signmessage and verifymessage don't work with SegWit addresses yet. They're remaining TODOs, for this PR or a follow-up. Because of that, several tests unexpectedly run with -addresstype=legacy for now.

Copy link
Contributor

@promag promag left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Light review, it would be nice to push base PR's.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In commit Expose method to find key for a single-key destination:

Use boost::apply_visitor instead?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I tried that, but the result is much longer and harder to get right (see below). It's also the wrong approach I think. A visitor is used when you want to handle all possible types - here we specifically only want to support a specific subset of cases (P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH-P2WPKH).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In commit Expose method to find key for a single-key destination:

Recursive call?

            return GetKeyForDestination(inner_dest);

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not that easy, as it could match a superset (for example P2SH-P2PKH), or even invalid things (P2SH-P2SH-P2WPKH?).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right.

Isn't boost::get kind of expensive? Avoid 2nd call?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's very cheap - look at the tag, and return the argument with a cast.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In commit SegWit wallet support:

Remove?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add init tests (follow up maybe)?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will add those later.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing default value?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing test for this error.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will add later.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Default value?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add init tests (follow up maybe)?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will add those later.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Missing test.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will add.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Remove , True so that default value is tested.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These should mention the defaults, which likely means refactoring how the "default" string is handled.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added explanation of defaults.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Default should probably remain legacy until support for newer styles is complete (eg, import* RPC)?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd rather not. This makes the existing tests far more powerful.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tests don't need to (and probably shouldn't) rely on defaults...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes and no.

I think that many tests, which are primarily testing things unrelated to addresses, should use the default address type. They don't strictly rely on them, but it's better if they work with either type, and it's certainly easier to not need to change all of them.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like it would be better to change the deprecated "account" into a JSON Object options.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that should be done separately.

@petertodd
Copy link
Contributor

A potential problem with supporting -addressstyle=segwit w/ Bech32 on day zero is it may confuse people into thinking segwit needs the new address format. OTOH, if we don't, it probably makes the P2SH adoption hell more likely.

@flack
Copy link
Contributor

flack commented Sep 28, 2017

maybe it should be renamed to -addressstyle=bech32?

laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2017
8213838 [Qt] tolerate BIP173/bech32 addresses during input validation (Jonas Schnelli)
06eaca6 [RPC] Wallet: test importing of native witness scripts (NicolasDorier)
fd0041a Use BIP173 addresses in segwit.py test (Pieter Wuille)
e278f12 Support BIP173 in addwitnessaddress (Pieter Wuille)
c091b99 Implement BIP173 addresses and tests (Pieter Wuille)
bd355b8 Add regtest testing to base58_tests (Pieter Wuille)
6565c55 Convert base58_tests from type/payload to scriptPubKey comparison (Pieter Wuille)
8fd2267 Import Bech32 C++ reference code & tests (Pieter Wuille)
1e46ebd Implement {Encode,Decode}Destination without CBitcoinAddress (Pieter Wuille)

Pull request description:

  Builds on top of #11117.

  This adds support for:
  * Creating BIP173 addresses for testing (through `addwitnessaddress`, though by default it still produces P2SH versions)
  * Sending to BIP173 addresses (including non-v0 ones)
  * Analysing BIP173 addresses (through `validateaddress`)

  It includes a reformatted version of the [C++ Bech32 reference code](https://github.com/sipa/bech32/tree/master/ref/c%2B%2B) and an independent implementation of the address encoding/decoding logic (integrated with CTxDestination). All BIP173 test vectors are included.

  Not included (and intended for other PRs):
  * Full wallet support for SegWit (which would include automatically adding witness scripts to the wallet during automatic keypool topup, SegWit change outputs, ...) [see #11403]
  * Splitting base58.cpp and tests/base58_tests.cpp up into base58-specific code, and "address encoding"-code [see #11372]
  * Error locating in UI for BIP173 addresses.

Tree-SHA512: 238031185fd07f3ac873c586043970cc2db91bf7735c3c168cb33a3db39a7bda81d4891b649685bb17ef90dc63af0328e7705d8cd3e8dafd6c4d3c08fb230341
@meshcollider
Copy link
Contributor

Needs rebase after #11167 merge but that'll make it clearer what's new here to review 👍

src/rpc/misc.cpp Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This field needs to be added anywhere it's used in help text for RPC calls.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You might want to copy the field to the help text rather than move it, though :p

(Use after move here)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Remove plurals from description.

@sipa sipa force-pushed the 201709_segwitwallet2 branch from a3a79cd to 20da344 Compare September 29, 2017 18:36
@sipa
Copy link
Member Author

sipa commented Sep 29, 2017

Rebased after #11167 merge.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

pedantic nit, but this only supports v0 of each witness version

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've always considered P2WPKH as specifically referring to v0 20-byte witness programs, and P2WSH as v0 32-byte ones. We'll need to come up with even clumsier names later ;)

Copy link
Member

@instagibbs instagibbs Sep 29, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

startup options strings being different than getnewaddress options is a bit odd to me?

'p2sh_p2wpkh' vs p2sh etc

Copy link
Member Author

@sipa sipa Nov 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed. Standardized on 'legacy', 'p2sh', and 'bech32'. It's not entirely accurate, as P2SH is a scriptPubKey type and not its address encoding, but meh - they're probably the most recognizable names.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No solution off the top of my head, but it makes sense that this would be set per-wallet. If not, could we name it g_address_style?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed as a global now, as we don't really have a way to configure it per wallet. Can be revised if there ever is.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

changestyle needs a test

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

argument needs a test

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

change seems way out of place here

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same suggestion as address_style

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

@gmaxwell
Copy link
Contributor

Regarding petertodd's concern, I think something like flack's suggestion would address it.

Copy link
Contributor

@kallewoof kallewoof left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK 5632374f2f71bca384ceed07ca6842fd87102346

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The help for e.g. getnewaddress says "p2wpkh" etc. One or the other needs to be changed.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed, I think it's consistent now.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you want "getnewaddress ( \"account\" \"style\" )\n"

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This shouldn't just be tacked on the end. Accounts are deprecated. Just replace "account" with an options Object.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That would be API breaking for a lot of parties which is at odds with rapid deployment.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#11403 (comment)

This shouldn't just be tacked on the end. Accounts are deprecated. Just replace "account" with an options Object.

In this particular context, account will just be renamed to label, rather than removed entirely. (At least this is what #11536 does.)

@sipa sipa force-pushed the 201709_segwitwallet2 branch from 5632374 to f542dae Compare October 14, 2017 02:00
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could instead inherit the ctors from uint160/uint256 to shortcut the construction from WitnessV0KeyHash(uint160(foo) to WitnessV0KeyHash(foo):

using uint160::uint160;

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cool, done.

Copy link
Member

@theuni theuni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added a few more comments.

I suspect I'm missing something about the generic-ish functions in CWallet. Do you maybe have plans to make those per-wallet as @instagibbs suggested?

src/rpc/misc.cpp Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why dupe this? Helps with existing tooling?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, tests that expect to see a pubkey field when calling validateaddress on the output of getnewaddress.

Copy link
Member

@theuni theuni Oct 17, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

imo, it's clearer (and less redundant) to test the result of the assignment:

    if (const CKeyID* ret = boost::get<CKeyID>(&dest)) {
        return *ret;
    }

Edit: That's also the common paradigm for using std::weak_ptr::lock()

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed.

src/keystore.cpp Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure about the sequencing rules here. I'd feel safer with a temporary CScriptID.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ugh, thanks for pointing that out.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure about the sequencing rules here. I'd feel safer with a temporary CScriptID.

For the record, there should be no issue here. std::move just does an rvalue reference cast to influence template deduction and function overloading. It doesn't actually actually move anything or do anything else at runtime.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can't this pass in nullptr and move out of CWallet? Unless I'm missing something, it's not actually related.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Moved to script/signer.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If IsSolvable moves out of CWallet, I believe these can too.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done. IsSolvable is moved to script/sign, GetDestinationForKey is moved to keystore.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems the caller should be responsible for adding this if it's a WitnessV0ScriptHash? Like the others, this doesn't seem like wallet functionality to me.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, it's ugly. I don't immediately see a nicer solution though, except for a callback to pass in, or duplicating part of this function just to find the correct program.

Note that if it weren't for the implicitly-know-about-witness-versions-of-keys logic, an equivalent line would be needed in GetDestinationForKey or its callers.

@Sjors
Copy link
Member

Sjors commented Oct 20, 2017

The wallet probably needs to be able to generate both p2sh and bech32 addresses, depending on who the user needs to communicate the address to. In fact, the UI might need to display both at the same time.

For example, I might send an email requesting payment to a bech32 address, and telling the recipient to use the p2sh address only if their wallet doesn't support the new format. A backwards compatible QR code could contain (admittedly ad hoc): bitcoin:3ba1...?amount=0.01&bech32=bc1qw5....

So rather than -addressstyle, isn't it better to make address style an argument for calls to getnewaddress and createmultisigaddress?

I think this was brought up elsewhere, but If bech32 is the default, wouldn't that confuse RPC consumers, especially if they do any input validation? p2sh seems like a safer default.
Alternatively, perhaps the default can be bech32, but with a configure flag command line option to use a different default (and a warning in the release notes). It would be nice if RPC calls were versioned.

@sipa
Copy link
Member Author

sipa commented Oct 20, 2017

@Sjors There is an RPC argument added to address-creating RPCs to override the default.

@Sjors
Copy link
Member

Sjors commented Oct 20, 2017

@sipa I see, perhaps -addressstyle should be -addressstyledefault instead to make that more clear?

PastaPastaPasta pushed a commit to PastaPastaPasta/dash that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2020
PastaPastaPasta pushed a commit to PastaPastaPasta/dash that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2020
… safety

9c8eca7 Split up key and script metadata for better type safety (Russell Yanofsky)

Pull request description:

  Suggested by @TheBlueMatt
  bitcoin#11403 (comment)

  Combining the maps was probably never a good arrangement but is more
  problematic now in presence of WitnessV0ScriptHash and WitnessV0KeyHash types.

Tree-SHA512: 9263e9c01090fb49221e91d88a88241a9691dda3e92d86041c8e284306a64d3af5e2438249f9dcc3e6e4a5c11c1a89f975a86d55690adf95bf2636f15f99f92a
deadalnix pushed a commit to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc that referenced this pull request May 19, 2020
Summary:
Improvements and cleanups by John Newbery

This is from [[bitcoin/bitcoin#11403 | PR11403]] : bitcoin/bitcoin@b224a47

We initially decided not to backport it because we don't have this feature, but it turns out it exercice various parts of the code and is useful. In addition, it makes backport easier.

Also include a trick similar to [[bitcoin/bitcoin#17124 | PR17124]] to significantly speedup the test.

Test Plan:
  ninja all check-all

Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, majcosta

Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, majcosta

Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D6131
ftrader pushed a commit to bitcoin-cash-node/bitcoin-cash-node that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2020
Summary:
Improvements and cleanups by John Newbery

This is from [[bitcoin/bitcoin#11403 | PR11403]] : bitcoin/bitcoin@b224a47

We initially decided not to backport it because we don't have this feature, but it turns out it exercice various parts of the code and is useful. In addition, it makes backport easier.

Also include a trick similar to [[bitcoin/bitcoin#17124 | PR17124]] to significantly speedup the test.

Test Plan:
  ninja all check-all

Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, majcosta

Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, majcosta

Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D6131
xdustinface added a commit to xdustinface/dash that referenced this pull request Oct 14, 2020
UdjinM6 added a commit to dashpay/dash that referenced this pull request Oct 14, 2020
UdjinM6 pushed a commit to UdjinM6/dash that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2021
gades pushed a commit to cosanta/cosanta-core that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2021
malbit pushed a commit to malbit/raptoreum that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2021
9c8eca7 Split up key and script metadata for better type safety (Russell Yanofsky)

Pull request description:

  Suggested by @TheBlueMatt
  bitcoin/bitcoin#11403 (comment)

  Combining the maps was probably never a good arrangement but is more
  problematic now in presence of WitnessV0ScriptHash and WitnessV0KeyHash types.

Tree-SHA512: 9263e9c01090fb49221e91d88a88241a9691dda3e92d86041c8e284306a64d3af5e2438249f9dcc3e6e4a5c11c1a89f975a86d55690adf95bf2636f15f99f92a
gades pushed a commit to cosanta/cosanta-core that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2022
… safety

9c8eca7 Split up key and script metadata for better type safety (Russell Yanofsky)

Pull request description:

  Suggested by @TheBlueMatt
  bitcoin#11403 (comment)

  Combining the maps was probably never a good arrangement but is more
  problematic now in presence of WitnessV0ScriptHash and WitnessV0KeyHash types.

Tree-SHA512: 9263e9c01090fb49221e91d88a88241a9691dda3e92d86041c8e284306a64d3af5e2438249f9dcc3e6e4a5c11c1a89f975a86d55690adf95bf2636f15f99f92a
gades pushed a commit to cosanta/cosanta-core that referenced this pull request Feb 15, 2022
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 15, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.