wallet: deprecate replaceable argument from transaction (and psbt) creation (and modification) RPCs #35433

Fixes #32661.

The replaceable argument in several wallet RPC requests has been marked deprecated and for now users have the option to use this argument via the -deprecatedrpc=bip125 startup option. Affected RPCs are createrawtransaction, fundrawtransaction, createpsbt, walletcreatefundedpsbt, send, sendtoaddress, sendmany, sendall, bumpfee, and psbtbumpfee.

This builds upon the existing issue of removing the option for users to signal replaceability because fullrbf is the default policy and prevalent in the network (since bitcoin core v28 was released in late 2024) that makes every transaction replaceable by default, making this user option unnecessary.

<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/35433.

<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->

Reviews

See the guideline and AI policy for information on the review process.

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code>&lt;!--meta-tag:bot-skip--&gt;</code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #35852 (scripted-diff: Use inline const(expr) over static constexpr in headers by maflcko)
• #35358 (external signer: verify PSBT is reliable after signing it by brunoerg)

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.

<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->

LLM Linter (✨ experimental)

Possible places where named args for integral literals may be used (e.g. func(x, /*named_arg=*/0) in C++, and func(x, named_arg=0) in Python):

• walletcreatefundedpsbt([...], [...], block_height+2, {"add_inputs": True}, False) in test/functional/rpc_psbt.py
• walletcreatefundedpsbt([], {dest:0.5}, 0, {}, True) in test/functional/wallet_signer.py
• createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs, 0) in test/functional/wallet_balance.py
• createrawtransaction([], {target_address: 0.1}, 0) in test/functional/wallet_fundrawtransaction.py

^{2026-08-12 11:44:19}

I will add test case for bumpfee and psbtbumpfee along with release note.

<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. _{Task lint: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/26763283466/job/78882570147} _{LLM reason (✨ experimental): CI failed because the Python lint (ruff) reported an error—an unused import MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE in test/functional/rpc_psbt.py.}

<details><summary>Hints</summary>

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

• Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.

• A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

• An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

</details>

I will add test case for bumpfee and psbtbumpfee along with release note.

Done now.

Updated the PR to not depend on #35405, removed the two commit from that PR.

Pushed the last two testing related commits of PR #35442 here as per this review comment #35442 (comment).

Edit: Reverted as they are dependent on #35405 as well slightly.

<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. _{Task lint: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/27275445645/job/80555467804} _{LLM reason (✨ experimental): CI failed because Python linting reported an error: test_framework.messages is missing MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE in test/functional/rpc_psbt.py.}

<details><summary>Hints</summary>

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

• Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.

• A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

• An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

</details>

Edit: Reverted as they are dependent on #35405 as well slightly.

I think the PR's description needs to be updated again?

Edit: Reverted as they are dependent on #35405 as well slightly.

I think the PR's description needs to be updated again?

The description is fine, it was written before these two commits (now removed) were added in this PR.

Force-pushed to not hardcode replaceable as false in the RPC help sections and CCoinControl objects. Based on the feedback on PR #35405 and the corresponding responses in the ML.

Force-pushed to update the rpc_psbt.py test that failed after reverting the default replaceable value to true in createpsbt RPC.

The CI / test ancestor commits (pull_request) failure is unrelated - #34731.

<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. _{Task iwyu: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/27553730406/job/81452610641} _{LLM reason (✨ experimental): CI failed because IWYU detected missing/incorrect #includes (failure generated from IWYU) in src/bench/pool.cpp.}

<details><summary>Hints</summary>

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

• Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.

• A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

• An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

</details>

The CI / iwyu (pull_request) failure is unrelated and should have been fixed post #35535.

Rebased over master to incorporate changes from PR #35543.

concept ACK

reviewed 020560e00a4b49e5ceb4365def4f2e07b60eee57

The code looks good, but I think the way it is done the deprecation might be invisible for the users. If a user does add a replaceable argument but does not enable the deprecated flag it will be ignored without the user noticing.

I think all deprecated fields should throw if used when the deprecated flag is not set.

in 020560e00a4b49e5ceb4365def4f2e07b60eee57 wallet, test: add test cases for deprecated RBF features The test only checks the replaceable=True, does not check for replaceable=False.

a00899f3d7fca8ed5d8f849bca4979099a3d8aac "wallet, test: replace rbf_node with node in wallet_bumpfee.py" seems entirely unnecessary. Mass renaming things in that file breaks git blame, and I don't really see the benefit for changing the name. rbf_node is still kind of appropriate because that's node that's doing all of the rbf things.

The deprecation should be throwing if the option is set, not silently ignoring it. For the options objects, it can throw if the option is provided at all. For positional arguments, the argument must be null. We only accept the option if -deprecatedrpc is provided.

I think all deprecated fields should throw if used when the deprecated flag is not set.

Done

in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/020560e00a4b49e5ceb4365def4f2e07b60eee57 wallet, test: add test cases for deprecated RBF features The test only checks the replaceable=True, does not check for replaceable=False.

Done

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a00899f3d7fca8ed5d8f849bca4979099a3d8aac "wallet, test: replace rbf_node with node in wallet_bumpfee.py" seems entirely unnecessary. Mass renaming things in that file breaks git blame, and I don't really see the benefit for changing the name. rbf_node is still kind of appropriate because that's node that's doing all of the rbf things.

Dropped

The deprecation should be throwing if the option is set, not silently ignoring it. For the options objects, it can throw if the option is provided at all. For positional arguments, the argument must be null. We only accept the option if -deprecatedrpc is provided.

Done

Rebased over master to incorporate changes from #35836.

On a node started without -deprecatedrpc=bip125 (the default), three sendtoaddress examples in this help block still supply the deprecated option.

diff --git a/src/wallet/rpc/spend.cpp b/src/wallet/rpc/spend.cpp
index 068b3fda13..fdd6e4c89d 100644
--- a/src/wallet/rpc/spend.cpp
+++ b/src/wallet/rpc/spend.cpp
@@ -280,14 +280,14 @@ RPCMethod sendtoaddress()
                     "\nSend 0.1 BTC\n"
                     + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1") +
                     "\nSend 0.1 BTC with a confirmation target of 6 blocks in economical fee estimate mode using positional arguments\n"
-                    + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1 \"donation\" \"sean's outpost\" false true 6 economical") +
-                    "\nSend 0.1 BTC with a fee rate of 1.1 " + CURRENCY_ATOM + "/vB, subtract fee from amount, BIP125-replaceable, using positional arguments\n"
-                    + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1 \"drinks\" \"room77\" true true null \"unset\" null 1.1") +
+                    + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1 \"donation\" \"sean's outpost\" false null 6 economical") +
+                    "\nSend 0.1 BTC with a fee rate of 1.1 " + CURRENCY_ATOM + "/vB, subtract fee from amount, using positional arguments\n"
+                    + HelpExampleCli("sendtoaddress", "\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" 0.1 \"drinks\" \"room77\" true null null \"unset\" null 1.1") +
                     "\nSend 0.2 BTC with a confirmation target of 6 blocks in economical fee estimate mode using named arguments\n"
                     + HelpExampleCli("-named sendtoaddress", "address=\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" amount=0.2 conf_target=6 estimate_mode=\"economical\"") +
                     "\nSend 0.5 BTC with a fee rate of 25 " + CURRENCY_ATOM + "/vB using named arguments\n"
                     + HelpExampleCli("-named sendtoaddress", "address=\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" amount=0.5 fee_rate=25")
-                    + HelpExampleCli("-named sendtoaddress", "address=\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" amount=0.5 fee_rate=25 subtractfeefromamount=false replaceable=true avoid_reuse=true comment=\"2 pizzas\" comment_to=\"jeremy\" verbose=true")
+                    + HelpExampleCli("-named sendtoaddress", "address=\"" + EXAMPLE_ADDRESS[0] + "\" amount=0.5 fee_rate=25 subtractfeefromamount=false avoid_reuse=true comment=\"2 pizzas\" comment_to=\"jeremy\" verbose=true")
                 },
         [](const RPCMethod& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
 {

<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. _{Task lint: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/31592235170/job/94099596196} _{LLM reason (✨ experimental): CI failed because the commit_msg lint detected an invalid commit message format (missing a blank line after the subject/body in commit 6eff6977bc1a1b0aebbe28cfab63939c235cdbc6).}

<details><summary>Hints</summary>

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

• Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.

• A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

• An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

</details>

On a node started without -deprecatedrpc=bip125 (the default), three sendtoaddress examples in this help block still supply the deprecated option.

Applied the suggestion.

Ideally deprecated RPC testing should be added to test file rpc_reprecated.py

Ideally deprecated RPC testing should be added to test file rpc_reprecated.py

This has been discussed before here: #35381#pullrequestreview-4371680101

Ideally deprecated RPC testing should be added to test file rpc_reprecated.py

This has been discussed before here: #35381 (review)

Oh right, I knew we discussed this before but I couldn't find the conversation.

Anyway I think you should be able to move this block adding the self.is_wallet_compiled, the tests passes locally for me compiling without a wallet:

        if self.is_wallet_compiled():
            self.log.info("Test without -deprecatedrpc=bip125")
            DEPRECATED_RPC_MESSAGE = "Deprecated \"replaceable\" argument passed. Run with -deprecatedrpc=bip125 startup option to use it."
            node = self.nodes[0]
            node.createwallet("deprecated_optinrbf")
            wallet = node.get_wallet_rpc("deprecated_optinrbf")
            self.generatetoaddress(node, nblocks=101, address=wallet.getnewaddress(), sync_fun=self.no_op)

            # helper functions
            def get_largest_unspent():
              return max(wallet.listunspent(), key=lambda unspent: unspent["amount"])

            def check_rbf_signalling(inputs, rbf_signalling=True):
              for input in inputs:
                if rbf_signalling:
                  assert_equal(input["sequence"], MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE)
                else:
                  assert_not_equal(input["sequence"], MAX_BIP125_RBF_SEQUENCE)

            def assert_rbf_signalling_in_wallet_tx(tx_id):
              wallet_mempool_tx = wallet.gettransaction(tx_id)
              assert_equal("bip125-replaceable" in wallet_mempool_tx, True)
              assert_equal(wallet_mempool_tx["bip125-replaceable"], "yes")

            send_rpcs = [
              lambda: wallet.send(outputs=[{wallet.getnewaddress(): 1}], options={"replaceable": True})["txid"],
              lambda: wallet.sendtoaddress(address=wallet.getnewaddress(), amount=1, replaceable=True),
              lambda: wallet.sendmany(amounts={wallet.getnewaddress():1, wallet.getnewaddress():1}, replaceable=True),
              lambda: wallet.sendall(recipients=[wallet.getnewaddress()], replaceable=True)["txid"],
            ]
    
            # check for errors regarding usage of deprecated arguments without -deprecatedrpc startup option
            unspent = get_largest_unspent()
            assert_raises_rpc_error(-32, DEPRECATED_RPC_MESSAGE, wallet.createrawtransaction, inputs=[unspent], outputs=[{wallet.getnewaddress(): 1}], replaceable=True)
            assert_raises_rpc_error(-32, DEPRECATED_RPC_MESSAGE, wallet.createpsbt, inputs=[unspent], outputs=[{wallet.getnewaddress(): 1}], replaceable=True)
            for rpc in send_rpcs:
              try:
                rpc()
              except JSONRPCException as e:
                assert_equal(e.error["code"], -32)
                assert_equal(e.error["message"], DEPRECATED_RPC_MESSAGE)
              except Exception as e:
                raise AssertionError("Unexpected exception raised: " + type(e).__name__)

Another nit on the tests, #35433 (review) still apply

reviewed 3d06f13d55872047be21c9c417f4a3679510f661

<!--cf906140f33d8803c4a75a2196329ecb-->

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.