CLTV IsSuperMajority() soft-fork, rebased against v0.10.2 #6706

petertodd commented at 2:25 AM on September 21, 2015: contributor

Everything required to backport CLTV to v0.10, including the soft-fork itself.

laanwj added the label Consensus on Sep 24, 2015

laanwj commented at 9:29 AM on September 29, 2015: member

Somehow I cannot get travis to pass here. Even though "travis: for travis generating an extra build" is on the 0.10 branch, it still creates an extra empty test target. @theuni any idea?

btcdrak commented at 5:36 PM on September 29, 2015: contributor

@laanwj Travis has been doing this in a lot of places randomly. That extra target is bogus and can be ignored.

laanwj commented at 7:42 PM on September 29, 2015: member

@btcdrak Sure, but we managed to correct that on the branch by twiddling with the .travis.yml file (which is why it doesn't appear in master pullreqs or the 0.11 one). But somehow it does here. And it's not random, I re-triggered it three times.

dexX7 commented at 11:57 PM on September 29, 2015: contributor

Might be resolved by rebasing on top of the updated 0.10.

The last build 81320710 also refers to a non-existing commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0dc55a8e8992c610c84adfd364d5c88a187d779a.

petertodd force-pushed on Oct 1, 2015

petertodd commented at 7:24 AM on October 2, 2015: contributor

Rebased as suggested; tests passing now.

dexX7 commented at 8:32 AM on October 2, 2015: contributor

Ah nice.

Looks good to me. I can confirm that the code for 0.10 is the same as for master and 0.11.

The softfork status via "getblockchaininfo" is missing in this branch (i.e. 08dbe20f7f8d8dbefb7955d4470b891ac2344ba5 + f59bc924a2af3e4dc0512eeeb5610885781f24fd) though.

petertodd commented at 9:42 AM on October 2, 2015: contributor

@dexX7 That code depends on the consensusParams stuff, which was added in v0.11.0, so I didn't bother rebasing it for v0.10.x - I expect on a small handful of miners to be using v0.10.x anyway.

MarcoFalke commented at 2:10 PM on October 8, 2015: member

Needs rebase due to SCRIPT_VERIFY_LOW_S

Make CScriptNum() take nMaxNumSize as an argument

While the existing numeric opcodes are all limited to 4-byte bignum
arguments, new opcodes will need different limits.

Rebased-From: 99088d60d8a7747c6d1a7fd5d8cd388be1b3e138

689746841a

Move LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD to src/script/script.h

Will now be needed by CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY code.

Rebased-From: 48e9c57cf06352f890eac4285ae022d8746cf3fd

750d54f951

Replace NOP2 with CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (BIP65)

<nLockTime> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY -> <nLockTime>

Fails if tx.nLockTime < nLockTime, allowing the funds in a txout to be
locked until some block height or block time in the future is reached.

Only the logic and unittests are implemented; this commit does not have
any actual soft-fork logic in it.

Thanks to Pieter Wuille for rebase.

Credit goes to Gregory Maxwell for the suggestion of comparing the
argument against the transaction nLockTime rather than the current
time/blockheight directly.

Rebased-From: bc60b2b4b401f0adff5b8b9678903ff8feb5867b

6d0132520c

petertodd force-pushed on Oct 8, 2015

petertodd commented at 3:46 PM on October 8, 2015: contributor

@MarcoFalke Rebased

Enable CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY as a standard script verify flag

Transactions that fail CLTV verification will be rejected from the
mempool, making it easy to test the feature. However blocks containing
"invalid" CLTV-using transactions will still be accepted; this is *not*
the soft-fork required to actually enable CLTV for production use.

Rebased-From: ffd75adce01a78b3461b3ff05bcc2b530a9ce994

0e01d0f89d

Add CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (BIP65) soft-fork logic

Based on the earlier BIP66 soft-fork logic implemented by Pieter
Wuille's 5a47811da5158df763aa2fca09ce646ee0c51e7b

Rebased-From: 287f54fc90c29301faede8d4ac2ea24a91441917

41372485ce

Add RPC tests for the CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (BIP65) soft-fork

bip65-cltv.py is based on the earlier BIP66 soft-fork RPC test
implemented by Pieter Wuille's 819bcf9b9902319176cdb1d476cacfee9b3727ec

bip65-cltv-p2p.py is based on the earlier BIP66 P2P test by Suhas
Daftuar's d76412b068d95454732aa3def95decf35251759a

Rebased-From: 308257856099e82e91881ba97f741d840184727c

6a1343b470

CLTV: Add more tests to improve coverage

Four cases included:

* The CLTV operand type mismatches the tx locktime. In the script it is
  1 (interpreted as block height), but in the tx is 500000000
  (interpreted as date)
* The stack is empty when executing OP_CLTV
* The tx is final by having only one input with MAX_INT sequence number
* The operand for CLTV is negative (after OP_0 OP_1 OP_SUB)

Rebased-From: cb54d17355864fa08826d6511a0d7692b21ef2c9

5dc72f8bb0

petertodd force-pushed on Oct 8, 2015

CodeShark commented at 4:37 AM on October 9, 2015: contributor

Tested. Looks good to me. ACK

dcousens commented at 11:33 PM on October 13, 2015: contributor

ACK

btcdrak commented at 8:47 PM on October 22, 2015: contributor

utACK

laanwj merged this on Oct 23, 2015

laanwj closed this on Oct 23, 2015

laanwj referenced this in commit 4b80b09f73 on Oct 23, 2015

MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021