| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
94ed4fbf8e1a396c650b5134d396d6c0be35ce10 Add release note for size 2 package rbf (Greg Sanders)
afd52d8e63ed323a159ea49fd1f10542abeacb97 doc: update package RBF comment (Greg Sanders)
6e3c4394cfadf32c06c8c4732d136ca10c316721 mempool: Improve logging of replaced transactions (Greg Sanders)
d3466e4cc5051c314873dd14ec8f7a88494c0780 CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult: Check package rbf invariants (Greg Sanders)
316d7b63c97144ba3e21201315c784852210f8ff Fuzz: pass mempool to CheckPackageMempoolAcceptResult (Greg Sanders)
4d15bcf448eb3c4451b63e8f78cc61f3f9f9b639 [test] package rbf (glozow)
dc21f61c72e5a97d974ca2c5cb70b8328f4fab2a [policy] package rbf (Suhas Daftuar)
5da396781589177d4ceb3b4b59c9f309a5e4d029 PackageV3Checks: Relax assumptions (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Allows any 2 transaction package with no in-mempool ancestors to do package RBF when directly conflicting with other mempool clusters of size two or less.
Proposed validation steps:
1) If the transaction package is of size 1, legacy rbf rules apply.
2) Otherwise the transaction package consists of a (parent, child) pair with no other in-mempool ancestors (or descendants, obviously), so it is also going to create a cluster of size 2. If larger, fail.
3) The package rbf may not evict more than 100 transactions from the mempool(bip125 rule 5)
4) The package is a single chunk
5) Every directly conflicted mempool transaction is connected to at most 1 other in-mempool transaction (ie the cluster size of the conflict is at most 2).
6) Diagram check: We ensure that the replacement is strictly superior, improving the mempool
7) The total fee of the package, minus the total fee of what is being evicted, is at least the minrelayfee * size of the package (equivalent to bip125 rule 3 and 4)
Post-cluster mempool this will likely be expanded to general package rbf, but this is what we can safely support today.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 94ed4fbf8e1a396c650b5134d396d6c0be35ce10
glozow:
reACK 94ed4fbf8e via range-diff
ismaelsadeeq:
re-ACK 94ed4fbf8e1a396c650b5134d396d6c0be35ce10
theStack:
Code-review ACK 94ed4fbf8e1a396c650b5134d396d6c0be35ce10
murchandamus:
utACK 94ed4fbf8e1a396c650b5134d396d6c0be35ce10
Tree-SHA512: 9bd383e695964f362f147482bbf73b1e77c4d792bda2e91d7f30d74b3540a09146a5528baf86854a113005581e8c75f04737302517b7d5124296bd7a151e3992
|
|
|
|
429ec1aaaaafab150f11e27fcf132a99b57c4fc7 refactor: Rename CTransaction::nVersion to version (Ava Chow)
27e70f1f5be1f536f2314cd2ea42b4f80d927fbd consensus: Store transaction nVersion as uint32_t (Ava Chow)
Pull request description:
Given that the use of a transaction's nVersion is always as an unsigned int, it doesn't make sense to store it as signed and then cast it to unsigned everywhere it is used and displayed.
Since a few alternative implementations have recently been revealed to have made an error with this signedness that would have resulted in consensus failure, I think it makes sense for us to just make this always unsigned to make it clear that the version is treated as unsigned. This would also help us avoid future potential issues with signedness of this value.
I believe that this is safe and does not actually change what transactions would or would not be considered both standard and consensus valid. Within consensus, the only use of the version in consensus is in BIP68 validation which was already casting it to uint32_t. Within policy, although it is used as a signed int for the transaction version number check, I do not think that this change would change standardness. Standard transactions are limited to the range [1, 2]. Negative numbers would have fallen under the < 1 condition, but by making it unsigned, they are still non-standard under the > 2 condition.
Unsigned and signed ints are serialized and unserialized the same way so there is no change in serialization.
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
ACK 429ec1aaaaafab150f11e27fcf132a99b57c4fc7 🐿
glozow:
ACK 429ec1aaaa
shaavan:
ACK 429ec1aaaaafab150f11e27fcf132a99b57c4fc7 💯
Tree-SHA512: 0bcd92a245d7d16c3665d2d4e815a4ef28207ad4a1fb46c6f0203cdafeab1b82c4e95e4bdce7805d80a4f4a46074f6542abad708e970550d38a00d759e3dcef1
|
|
09ef322acc0a88a9e119f74923399598984c68f6 [[refactor]] Check CTxMemPool options in constructor (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
The tests should run the same checks on the mempool options that the init code also applies. The downside to this patch is that the log line may now be printed more than once in the for loop.
This was originally noticed here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25290#discussion_r900272797.
ACKs for top commit:
stickies-v:
re-ACK 09ef322acc0a88a9e119f74923399598984c68f6 . Fixed unreachable assert and updated docstring, and also added an exception for "-maxmempool must be at least " in the `tx_pool` fuzz test, which makes sense when looking at how the mempool options are constructed in `SetMempoolConstraints`.
achow101:
ACK 09ef322acc0a88a9e119f74923399598984c68f6
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 09ef322acc0a88a9e119f74923399598984c68f6. Just fuzz test error checking fix and updated comment since last review
Tree-SHA512: eb3361411c2db70be17f912e3b14d9cb9c60fb0697a1eded952c3b7e8675b7d783780d45c52e091931d1d80fe0f0280cee98dd57a3100def13af20259d9d1b9e
|
|
In order to ensure that the change of nVersion to a uint32_t in the
previous commit has no effect, rename nVersion to version in this commit
so that reviewers can easily spot if a spot was missed or if there is a
check somewhere whose semantics have changed.
|
|
|
|
This ensures that the tests run the same checks on the mempool options
that the init code also applies.
|
|
|
|
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
git grep -l 'max_sane_feerate' | xargs sed -i 's/max_sane_feerate/client_maxfeerate/g'
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
|
|
submitpackage
38f70ba6ac86fb96c60571d2e1f316315c1c73cc RPC: Add maxfeerate and maxburnamount args to submitpackage (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Resolves https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28949
I couldn't manage to do it very cleanly outside of (sub)package evaluation itself, since it would change the current interface very heavily. Instead I threaded through the max fee argument and used that directly via ATMPArgs. From that perspective, this is somewhat a reversion from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19339. In a post-cluster mempool world, these checks could be consolidated to right after the given (ancestor) package is linearized/chunked, by just checking the feerate of the top chunk and rejecting the submission entirely if the top chunk is too high.
The implication here is that subpackages can be submitted to the mempool prior to hitting this new fee-based error condition.
ACKs for top commit:
ismaelsadeeq:
Re-ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/38f70ba6ac86fb96c60571d2e1f316315c1c73cc 👍🏾
glozow:
ACK 38f70ba6ac with some non-blocking nits
murchandamus:
LGTM, code review ACK 38f70ba6ac86fb96c60571d2e1f316315c1c73cc
Tree-SHA512: 38212aa9de25730944cee58b0806a3d37097e42719af8dd7de91ce86bb5d9770b6f7c37354bf418bd8ba571c52947da1dcdbb968bf429dd1dbdf8715315af18f
|
|
And thread the feerate value through ProcessNewPackage to
reject individual transactions that exceed the given
feerate. This allows subpackage processing, and is
compatible with future package RBF work.
|
|
|
|
Ensure we are checking sigop-adjusted virtual size by creating setups
and packages where sigop cost is larger than bip141 vsize.
Co-authored-by: Gregory Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>
|
|
Interface/CScheduler thread
91504cbe0de2b74ef1aa2709761aaf0597ec66a2 rpc: `SyncWithValidationInterfaceQueue` on fee estimation RPC's (ismaelsadeeq)
714523918ba2b853fc69bee6b04a33ba0c828bf5 tx fees, policy: CBlockPolicyEstimator update from `CValidationInterface` notifications (ismaelsadeeq)
dff5ad3b9944cbb56126ba37a8da180d1327ba39 CValidationInterface: modify the parameter of `TransactionAddedToMempool` (ismaelsadeeq)
91532bd38223d7d04166e05de11d0d0b55e60f13 tx fees, policy: update `CBlockPolicyEstimator::processBlock` parameter (ismaelsadeeq)
bfcd401368fc0dc43827a8969a37b7e038d5ca79 CValidationInterface, mempool: add new callback to `CValidationInterface` (ismaelsadeeq)
0889e07987294d4ef2814abfca16d8e2a0c5f541 tx fees, policy: cast with static_cast instead of C-Style cast (ismaelsadeeq)
a0e3eb7549d2ba4dd3af12b9ce65e29158f59078 tx fees, policy: bugfix: move `removeTx` into reason != `BLOCK` condition (ismaelsadeeq)
Pull request description:
This is an attempt to #11775
This Pr will enable fee estimator to listen to ValidationInterface notifications to process new transactions added and removed from the mempool.
This PR includes the following changes:
- Added a new callback to the Validation Interface `MempoolTransactionsRemovedForConnectedBlock`, which notifies listeners about the transactions that have been removed due to a new block being connected, along with the height at which the transactions were removed.
- Modified the `TransactionAddedToMempool` callback parameter to include additional information about the transaction needed for fee estimation.
- Updated `CBlockPolicyEstimator` to process transactions using` CTransactionRef` instead of `CTxMempoolEntry.`
- Implemented the `CValidationInterface` interface in `CBlockPolicyEstimater` and overridden the `TransactionAddedToMempool`, `TransactionRemovedFromMempool`, and `MempoolTransactionsRemovedForConnectedBlock` methods to receive updates from their notifications.
Prior to this PR, the fee estimator updates from the mempool, i.e whenever a new block is connected all transactions in the block that are in our mempool are going to be removed using the `removeForBlock` function in `txmempool.cpp`.
This removal triggered updates to the fee estimator. As a result, the fee estimator would block mempool's `cs` until it finished updating every time a new block was connected.
Instead of being blocked only on mempool tx removal, we were blocking on both tx removal and fee estimator updating.
If we want to further improve fee estimation, or add heavy-calulation steps to it, it is currently not viable as we would be slowing down block relay in the process
This PR is smaller in terms of the changes made compared to #11775, as it focuses solely on enabling fee estimator updates from the validationInterface/cscheduler thread notifications.
I have not split the validation interface because, as I understand it, the rationale behind the split in #11775 was to have `MempoolInterface` signals come from the mempool and `CValidationInterface` events come from validation. I believe this separation can be achieved in a separate refactoring PR when the need arises.
Also left out some commits from #11775
- Some refactoring which are no longer needed.
- Handle reorgs much better in fee estimator.
- Track witness hash malleation in fee estimator
I believe they are a separate change that can come in a follow-up after this.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 91504cbe0de2b74ef1aa2709761aaf0597ec66a2
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK 91504cbe0de2b74ef1aa2709761aaf0597ec66a2
willcl-ark:
ACK 91504cbe0de2b74ef1aa2709761aaf0597ec66a2
Tree-SHA512: 846dfb9da57a8a42458827b8975722d153907fe6302ad65748d74f311e1925557ad951c3d95fe71fb90ddcc8a3710c45abb343ab86b88780871cb9c38c72c7b1
|
|
notifications
`CBlockPolicyEstimator` will implement `CValidationInterface` and
subscribe to its notification to process transactions added and removed
from the mempool.
Re-delegate calculation of `validForFeeEstimation` from validation to fee estimator.
Also clean up the validForFeeEstimation arg thats no longer needed in `CTxMempool`.
Co-authored-by: Matt Corallo <git@bluematt.me>
|
|
Create a new struct `NewMempoolTransactionInfo` that will be used as the new parameter of
`TransactionAddedToMempool` callback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tx_package_eval target
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
