E.g. we're allowing to import scripts with several
sh levels.
These scripts are not being watched by the wallet;
IsMine return ISMINE_NO for them.
So, there is no reason to accept them in the first
place.
ec5f408034
DrahtBot
commented at 2:04 PM on July 22, 2023:
contributor
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
Reviews
See the guideline for information on the review process.
A summary of reviews will appear here.
<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->
Conflicts
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
#27034 (rpc: make importaddress compatible with descriptors wallet by furszy)
#26840 (refactor: importpubkey, importprivkey, importaddress, importmulti, and importdescriptors rpc by KolbyML)
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
test: wallet, coverage for importaddress invalid scripts
Also, fixed feature_segwit.py that was checking against a
never thrown RPC exception message.
The "The wallet already contains the private key for this address or script"
error is part of the importdescriptors RPC command, not importaddress.
60019df4b0
furszy force-pushed on Jul 22, 2023
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jul 22, 2023
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Jul 22, 2023
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Aug 9, 2023
DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Aug 18, 2023
achow101 referenced this in commit abe4fedab7 on Sep 19, 2023
DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Sep 20, 2023
achow101 requested review from Sjors on Sep 20, 2023
achow101 requested review from josibake on Sep 20, 2023
achow101 requested review from achow101 on Sep 20, 2023
maflcko
commented at 10:52 AM on September 21, 2023:
member
Needs rebase if still relevant
maflcko
commented at 10:54 AM on September 21, 2023:
member
I wonder if this is useful.
The bad behaviour was allowed for years and now that the legacy wallet will be removed soon, I wonder if it makes sense to change the bad behavior for this short time.
But no strong opinion, if others want this or think that there is a use-case for real users.
furszy
commented at 11:05 AM on September 21, 2023:
member
I wonder if this is useful.
The bad behaviour was allowed for years and now that the legacy wallet will be removed soon, I wonder if it makes sense to change the bad behavior for this short time.
But no strong opinion, if others want this or think that there is a use-case for real users.
I mostly agree. I made it mostly to prevent users from doing nasty things on their wallets. The import of invalid scripts might have other consequences. Bugs in the legacy wallet that we haven't (and probably will never) discover.
But in any case, I'm not that strong here anyway. Happy to hear other opinions. Another "let's not do it" comment and will close the PR.
achow101 closed this on Sep 21, 2023
Frank-GER referenced this in commit c851b748b2 on Sep 25, 2023
sidhujag referenced this in commit acdd6fb31d on Sep 26, 2023
This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository
bitcoin/bitcoin.
This site is not affiliated with GitHub.
Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2026-04-16 00:13 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me