v30rc2 createrawtransaction unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs #33544

1. 
   mikekelly commented at 10:53 pm on October 5, 2025: none

   Is there an existing issue for this?

   • I have searched the existing issues

   Current behaviour

   createrawtransaction in v30rc2 seems unable to create txns with multiple OP_RETURNs

   Expected behaviour

   Expected v30 cli to be able to generate transactions with multiple OP_RETURN outputs.

   Steps to reproduce

   0$ bitcoin-cli -regtest createrawtransaction \
   1  '[{"txid":"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000","vout":0}]' \
   2  '[{"data":"68656c6c6f"},{"data":"776f726c64"}]'
   3
   4# Error:
   5# error code: -8
   6# error message: Invalid parameter, duplicate key: data
   

   Relevant log output

   No response

   How did you obtain Bitcoin Core

   Pre-built binaries

   What version of Bitcoin Core are you using?

   v30rc2

   Operating system and version

   UNIX

   Machine specifications

   No response

2. 
   mikekelly commented at 5:43 am on October 6, 2025: none

   Here’s the offending lines

   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/30.x/src/rpc/rawtransaction_util.cpp#L109-L111

3. 
   maflcko commented at 6:17 am on October 6, 2025: member

   Is there an existing issue for this?

   * [x]  I have searched the existing issues
   

   See #32478?

4. 
   mikekelly commented at 6:33 am on October 6, 2025: none

   @maflcko - apologies. Out of interest, is it a hard rule that RPC changes like this must follow a release later? Seems strange to relax standardness but not give users a straightforward way to make use of it
5. mikekelly closed this on Oct 6, 2025

   ---

6. 
   maflcko commented at 6:46 am on October 6, 2025: member

   With policy changes, the expectation is that one release is needed to upgrade a sufficient portion of the network, until the wallet and RPC can offer them as features. Otherwise, users may not be able to propagate such transactions, or only intermittently.
7. 
   mikekelly commented at 6:52 am on October 6, 2025: none

   @maflcko genuine question - why couldn’t the approach be to accommodate policy changes in the same release but with a warning to users about potential propagation issues (and then remove it in the next release)?
8. 
   maflcko commented at 6:55 am on October 6, 2025: member

   Yeah, it is always a bit of a case-by-case decision. However, I don’t think a pull request in a reviewable state exists to implement this? So nothing can be merged into 31.x, nor 30.x anyway.
9. 
   mikekelly commented at 10:22 am on October 6, 2025: none

   Here’s the offending lines

   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/30.x/src/rpc/rawtransaction_util.cpp#L109-L111 @maflcko this is all that needs removing and replacing with a warning. I assume there are standardness tests that will start failing and need changing too. Not sure if I’ll have time to get to this myself. Also concerned there may be dragons here and it’s not as simple as it appears - what do you think @petertodd or @murchandamus ?

10. 
    maflcko commented at 10:32 am on October 6, 2025: member

    There is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32790/files, but it is still in draft and has not received any code-review, only a conceptual feedback.

    No strong opinion from my side, but I’ve removed the milestone from the issue and pull, so that reviewers (once there are any) can suggest a milestone, but I think it is clear that this missed 30.0 and it seems unlikely to make it into 30.1. Though, again, no strong opinion.

11. 
    mikekelly commented at 10:38 am on October 6, 2025: none

    @maflcko I suppose if it’s not going into 30.0 then it wont need warnings. It’s a shame to not have it in 30.0 but if the ship has sailed it is what it is.

Contributors
mikekelly maflcko