diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/rpc/client.cpp | 1 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | src/validation.cpp | 55 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp | 47 |
3 files changed, 93 insertions, 10 deletions
diff --git a/src/rpc/client.cpp b/src/rpc/client.cpp index a95ea0cf92..0eeb3f98b3 100644 --- a/src/rpc/client.cpp +++ b/src/rpc/client.cpp @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static const CRPCConvertParam vRPCConvertParams[] = { "listreceivedbyaddress", 0, "minconf" }, { "listreceivedbyaddress", 1, "include_empty" }, { "listreceivedbyaddress", 2, "include_watchonly" }, + { "listreceivedbyaddress", 3, "address_filter" }, { "listreceivedbyaccount", 0, "minconf" }, { "listreceivedbyaccount", 1, "include_empty" }, { "listreceivedbyaccount", 2, "include_watchonly" }, diff --git a/src/validation.cpp b/src/validation.cpp index a77362f5d6..51e40c17b5 100644 --- a/src/validation.cpp +++ b/src/validation.cpp @@ -1856,12 +1856,65 @@ bool CChainState::ConnectBlock(const CBlock& block, CValidationState& state, CBl // before the first had been spent. Since those coinbases are sufficiently buried its no longer possible to create further // duplicate transactions descending from the known pairs either. // If we're on the known chain at height greater than where BIP34 activated, we can save the db accesses needed for the BIP30 check. + + // BIP34 requires that a block at height X (block X) has its coinbase + // scriptSig start with a CScriptNum of X (indicated height X). The above + // logic of no longer requiring BIP30 once BIP34 activates is flawed in the + // case that there is a block X before the BIP34 height of 227,931 which has + // an indicated height Y where Y is greater than X. The coinbase for block + // X would also be a valid coinbase for block Y, which could be a BIP30 + // violation. An exhaustive search of all mainnet coinbases before the + // BIP34 height which have an indicated height greater than the block height + // reveals many occurrences. The 3 lowest indicated heights found are + // 209,921, 490,897, and 1,983,702 and thus coinbases for blocks at these 3 + // heights would be the first opportunity for BIP30 to be violated. + + // The search reveals a great many blocks which have an indicated height + // greater than 1,983,702, so we simply remove the optimization to skip + // BIP30 checking for blocks at height 1,983,702 or higher. Before we reach + // that block in another 25 years or so, we should take advantage of a + // future consensus change to do a new and improved version of BIP34 that + // will actually prevent ever creating any duplicate coinbases in the + // future. + static constexpr int BIP34_IMPLIES_BIP30_LIMIT = 1983702; + + // There is no potential to create a duplicate coinbase at block 209,921 + // because this is still before the BIP34 height and so explicit BIP30 + // checking is still active. + + // The final case is block 176,684 which has an indicated height of + // 490,897. Unfortunately, this issue was not discovered until about 2 weeks + // before block 490,897 so there was not much opportunity to address this + // case other than to carefully analyze it and determine it would not be a + // problem. Block 490,897 was, in fact, mined with a different coinbase than + // block 176,684, but it is important to note that even if it hadn't been or + // is remined on an alternate fork with a duplicate coinbase, we would still + // not run into a BIP30 violation. This is because the coinbase for 176,684 + // is spent in block 185,956 in transaction + // d4f7fbbf92f4a3014a230b2dc70b8058d02eb36ac06b4a0736d9d60eaa9e8781. This + // spending transaction can't be duplicated because it also spends coinbase + // 0328dd85c331237f18e781d692c92de57649529bd5edf1d01036daea32ffde29. This + // coinbase has an indicated height of over 4.2 billion, and wouldn't be + // duplicatable until that height, and it's currently impossible to create a + // chain that long. Nevertheless we may wish to consider a future soft fork + // which retroactively prevents block 490,897 from creating a duplicate + // coinbase. The two historical BIP30 violations often provide a confusing + // edge case when manipulating the UTXO and it would be simpler not to have + // another edge case to deal with. + + // testnet3 has no blocks before the BIP34 height with indicated heights + // post BIP34 before approximately height 486,000,000 and presumably will + // be reset before it reaches block 1,983,702 and starts doing unnecessary + // BIP30 checking again. assert(pindex->pprev); CBlockIndex *pindexBIP34height = pindex->pprev->GetAncestor(chainparams.GetConsensus().BIP34Height); //Only continue to enforce if we're below BIP34 activation height or the block hash at that height doesn't correspond. fEnforceBIP30 = fEnforceBIP30 && (!pindexBIP34height || !(pindexBIP34height->GetBlockHash() == chainparams.GetConsensus().BIP34Hash)); - if (fEnforceBIP30) { + // TODO: Remove BIP30 checking from block height 1,983,702 on, once we have a + // consensus change that ensures coinbases at those heights can not + // duplicate earlier coinbases. + if (fEnforceBIP30 || pindex->nHeight >= BIP34_IMPLIES_BIP30_LIMIT) { for (const auto& tx : block.vtx) { for (size_t o = 0; o < tx->vout.size(); o++) { if (view.HaveCoin(COutPoint(tx->GetHash(), o))) { diff --git a/src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp b/src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp index 52b68e97ee..457abec1bc 100644 --- a/src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp +++ b/src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp @@ -1403,6 +1403,16 @@ UniValue ListReceived(CWallet * const pwallet, const UniValue& params, bool fByA if(params[2].get_bool()) filter = filter | ISMINE_WATCH_ONLY; + bool has_filtered_address = false; + CTxDestination filtered_address = CNoDestination(); + if (!fByAccounts && params.size() > 3) { + if (!IsValidDestinationString(params[3].get_str())) { + throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, "address_filter parameter was invalid"); + } + filtered_address = DecodeDestination(params[3].get_str()); + has_filtered_address = true; + } + // Tally std::map<CTxDestination, tallyitem> mapTally; for (const std::pair<uint256, CWalletTx>& pairWtx : pwallet->mapWallet) { @@ -1421,6 +1431,10 @@ UniValue ListReceived(CWallet * const pwallet, const UniValue& params, bool fByA if (!ExtractDestination(txout.scriptPubKey, address)) continue; + if (has_filtered_address && !(filtered_address == address)) { + continue; + } + isminefilter mine = IsMine(*pwallet, address); if(!(mine & filter)) continue; @@ -1437,10 +1451,24 @@ UniValue ListReceived(CWallet * const pwallet, const UniValue& params, bool fByA // Reply UniValue ret(UniValue::VARR); std::map<std::string, tallyitem> mapAccountTally; - for (const std::pair<CTxDestination, CAddressBookData>& item : pwallet->mapAddressBook) { - const CTxDestination& dest = item.first; - const std::string& strAccount = item.second.name; - std::map<CTxDestination, tallyitem>::iterator it = mapTally.find(dest); + + // Create mapAddressBook iterator + // If we aren't filtering, go from begin() to end() + auto start = pwallet->mapAddressBook.begin(); + auto end = pwallet->mapAddressBook.end(); + // If we are filtering, find() the applicable entry + if (has_filtered_address) { + start = pwallet->mapAddressBook.find(filtered_address); + if (start != end) { + end = std::next(start); + } + } + + for (auto item_it = start; item_it != end; ++item_it) + { + const CTxDestination& address = item_it->first; + const std::string& strAccount = item_it->second.name; + auto it = mapTally.find(address); if (it == mapTally.end() && !fIncludeEmpty) continue; @@ -1466,7 +1494,7 @@ UniValue ListReceived(CWallet * const pwallet, const UniValue& params, bool fByA UniValue obj(UniValue::VOBJ); if(fIsWatchonly) obj.pushKV("involvesWatchonly", true); - obj.pushKV("address", EncodeDestination(dest)); + obj.pushKV("address", EncodeDestination(address)); obj.pushKV("account", strAccount); obj.pushKV("amount", ValueFromAmount(nAmount)); obj.pushKV("confirmations", (nConf == std::numeric_limits<int>::max() ? 0 : nConf)); @@ -1511,15 +1539,15 @@ UniValue listreceivedbyaddress(const JSONRPCRequest& request) return NullUniValue; } - if (request.fHelp || request.params.size() > 3) + if (request.fHelp || request.params.size() > 4) throw std::runtime_error( - "listreceivedbyaddress ( minconf include_empty include_watchonly)\n" + "listreceivedbyaddress ( minconf include_empty include_watchonly address_filter )\n" "\nList balances by receiving address.\n" "\nArguments:\n" "1. minconf (numeric, optional, default=1) The minimum number of confirmations before payments are included.\n" "2. include_empty (bool, optional, default=false) Whether to include addresses that haven't received any payments.\n" "3. include_watchonly (bool, optional, default=false) Whether to include watch-only addresses (see 'importaddress').\n" - + "4. address_filter (string, optional) If present, only return information on this address.\n" "\nResult:\n" "[\n" " {\n" @@ -1541,6 +1569,7 @@ UniValue listreceivedbyaddress(const JSONRPCRequest& request) + HelpExampleCli("listreceivedbyaddress", "") + HelpExampleCli("listreceivedbyaddress", "6 true") + HelpExampleRpc("listreceivedbyaddress", "6, true, true") + + HelpExampleRpc("listreceivedbyaddress", "6, true, true, \"1M72Sfpbz1BPpXFHz9m3CdqATR44Jvaydd\"") ); ObserveSafeMode(); @@ -3837,7 +3866,7 @@ static const CRPCCommand commands[] = { "wallet", "listaddressgroupings", &listaddressgroupings, {} }, { "wallet", "listlockunspent", &listlockunspent, {} }, { "wallet", "listreceivedbyaccount", &listreceivedbyaccount, {"minconf","include_empty","include_watchonly"} }, - { "wallet", "listreceivedbyaddress", &listreceivedbyaddress, {"minconf","include_empty","include_watchonly"} }, + { "wallet", "listreceivedbyaddress", &listreceivedbyaddress, {"minconf","include_empty","include_watchonly","address_filter"} }, { "wallet", "listsinceblock", &listsinceblock, {"blockhash","target_confirmations","include_watchonly","include_removed"} }, { "wallet", "listtransactions", &listtransactions, {"account","count","skip","include_watchonly"} }, { "wallet", "listunspent", &listunspent, {"minconf","maxconf","addresses","include_unsafe","query_options"} }, |