Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RPC: Add parameter to addmultisigaddress / createmultisig to sort public keys #8751

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

@afk11
Copy link
Contributor

afk11 commented Sep 17, 2016

I figured it may be useful for these RPC methods to allow sorting public keys (BIP67) The PR adds a new boolean to createmultisig / addmultisigaddress at the end of their parameter list. By default, this is set to false to avoid a BC break.

I added a RPC test file sort_multisig.py for testing createmultisig. Tests for addmultisigaddress went in wallet-accounts.py.

Note: Code to check whether sorting is desired had to be replicated in both RPC methods (not in _createmultisig_redeemScript) because addmultisigaddress already takes a parameter at position 3.

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch from 69b421d Sep 17, 2016
@dcousens
Copy link
Contributor

dcousens commented Sep 18, 2016

concept ACK

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Sep 22, 2016

Concept ACK, although I really don't like multiple-optional-positional-boolean APIs. Wish we switched to named arguments any day.

One nit: the RPC help should mention BIP67 by name.

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch Oct 4, 2016
@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Nov 8, 2016

Needs rebase

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch 2 times, most recently Nov 8, 2016
@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Nov 8, 2016

@MarcoFalke thanks, done. @laanwj I should have mentioned, nits addressed.

One travis run failed due to the compactblocks RPC test.

@ryanofsky
Copy link
Contributor

ryanofsky commented Nov 8, 2016

I can't see anything on travis right now (503 errors), but the compactblocks error is probably just the spurious #8842 / #9058 failures.

qa/rpc-tests/sort_multisig.py Outdated
class SortMultisigTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
self.num_nodes = 4

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@MarcoFalke

MarcoFalke Nov 8, 2016

Member

Nit: A single node should be enough?

@MarcoFalke
Copy link
Member

MarcoFalke commented Nov 8, 2016

Concept ACK 7d7a64726991ff087cb8125e0c7277173a688dc7

src/rpc/misc.cpp Outdated
@@ -293,6 +294,7 @@ UniValue createmultisig(const JSONRPCRequest& request)
" \"key\" (string) bitcoin address or hex-encoded public key\n"
" ,...\n"
" ]\n"
"3. \"fSort\" (bool, optional) Whether to sort public keys according to BIP67. Default setting is false.\n"

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 24, 2016

Member

Is it a string or a boolean?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@afk11

afk11 Nov 24, 2016

Author Contributor

It should be a boolean. Just observed they aren't usually quoted in RPC output, fixing now.

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch Nov 24, 2016
@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Nov 24, 2016

I probably shouldn't have squashed @MarcoFalke, I'm sorry for rebasing out the commit you reviewed. The only thing to change this time was the removal of "'s from the RPC help message.

Copy link
Member

luke-jr left a comment

Code looks reasonably correct, just a few nits. Did not verify tests.

src/rpc/misc.cpp Outdated
"2. \"keys\" (string, required) A json array of keys which are bitcoin addresses or hex-encoded public keys\n"
" [\n"
" \"key\" (string) bitcoin address or hex-encoded public key\n"
" ,...\n"
" ]\n"
"3. fSort (bool, optional) Whether to sort public keys according to BIP67. Default setting is false.\n"

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 25, 2016

Member

Rather have a named-options Object interface here.

src/script/standard.cpp Outdated
vEncoded.resize(keys.size());
BOOST_FOREACH(const CPubKey& key, keys) {
vEncoded[nEncoded++] = ToByteVector(key);
}

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 25, 2016

Member

Seems like the loop would be better as:

for (size_t n = 0; n < keys.size(); ++n) {
    vEncoded[n] = ToByteVector(keys[n]);
}
src/script/standard.cpp Outdated
CScript script;
int nEncoded = 0;
std::vector<std::vector<unsigned char>> vEncoded;
vEncoded.resize(keys.size());

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 25, 2016

Member

Wouldn't it be better to reserve and then emplace_back?

src/script/standard.cpp Outdated
}

if (fSorted) {
std::sort(vEncoded.begin(), vEncoded.end());

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 25, 2016

Member

I think this should do what BIP 67 requires, but someone more familiar with C++ and its locale support (or lack thereof) should probably confirm.

src/script/standard.h Outdated
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ bool ExtractDestinations(const CScript& scriptPubKey, txnouttype& typeRet, std::

CScript GetScriptForDestination(const CTxDestination& dest);
CScript GetScriptForRawPubKey(const CPubKey& pubkey);
CScript GetScriptForMultisig(int nRequired, const std::vector<CPubKey>& keys);
CScript GetScriptForMultisig(int nRequired, const std::vector<CPubKey>& keys, bool fSorted);

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 25, 2016

Member

Maybe default fSorted to false here rather than modify all the tests?

src/wallet/rpcwallet.cpp Outdated
"2. \"keysobject\" (string, required) A json array of bitcoin addresses or hex-encoded public keys\n"
" [\n"
" \"address\" (string) bitcoin address or hex-encoded public key\n"
" ...,\n"
" ]\n"
"3. \"account\" (string, optional) DEPRECATED. An account to assign the addresses to.\n"
"4. fSort (bool, optional) Whether to sort public keys according to BIP67. Default setting is false.\n"

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Nov 25, 2016

Member

As before, rather turn param 3 into an options Object.

luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Dec 21, 2016
…g_redeemScript to allow sorting of public keys (BIP67)

addmultisig/createmultisig RPC documentation: Remove stray quotes from fSort parameter

Github-Pull: bitcoin#8751
Rebased-From: 7439562df15db643253c6ac734aeaa0ef66c0c88
@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Dec 21, 2016

Should update doc/bips.md also.

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Feb 4, 2017

I rebased and addressed all the nits; pushed this to luke-jr/sort-multisigs

@afk11 Are you still maintaining this? Can you pull my changes?

git checkout sort-multisigs
git fetch git://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin sort-multisigs
git reset --hard FETCH_HEAD
git push ...
@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Feb 6, 2017

Sorry, yep I can pull these!

I wanted to wait until named parameters was merged before hand, so I could avoid adding a positional parameter before the accounts parameters were changed

I'll look at this in the next day or so (away from internet atm) wanna finish this up

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch 2 times, most recently from 8d5106b Mar 8, 2017
@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Mar 8, 2017

Merged commits and rebased. Apologies for the delay!

@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Mar 8, 2017

The Apple build failed because the job time exceeded the maximum :/

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch 3 times, most recently Mar 13, 2017
@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Mar 14, 2017

Rebased

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch Mar 30, 2017
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2017
Github-Pull: bitcoin#8751
Rebased-From: 69a90ec5730ef5544f6ec4543964b9e2b0c7b59a
@jnewbery
Copy link
Member

jnewbery commented Jun 15, 2017

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see the need for this. The addmultisigaddress RPC creates the multisig script with the keys in the order provided. Why not just have the client provide keys in sorted order if you want the script to be BIP-67 compliant?

It doesn't look like this PR is enforcing that the provided keys are compressed, so even with this PR, there are still expectations placed on the client.

@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Jun 16, 2017

I think if developers are already committing to using the RPC to make a multisig script, making it easier to produce the same representation is more important than not.

You are correct the PR as it stands doesn't validate it.. fixing this now.

@jnewbery
Copy link
Member

jnewbery commented Jun 16, 2017

I'm still a weak concept NACK for this. I don't agree that we should add complexity to the server when the same outcome can be achieved by simply running a sort() function on the client before calling the RPC. Sometimes there's good reason to add that complexity to the server - see for example #9991 which adds a filter to save significantly on bandwidth and server resources. In this case I don't see the benefit.

Sorry if that sounds negative - I think there needs to be some bar for adding new RPCs and arguments to avoid bloat.

However, if I'm wrong and there's widespread consensus that this is useful functionality and should be merged, can I at least ask that you use named arguments instead of an Options object? There's really no need for Options objects in RPC calls since named args were added in #8811.

@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Jun 19, 2017

Both RPC methods take an options object for this (sorry, the PR description wasn't updated with this)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8751/files#diff-ad6efdc354b57bd1fa29fc3abb6e2872R353
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8751/files#diff-df7d84ff2f53fcb2a0dc15a3a51e55ceR1050

I appreciate where you are coming from and agree that most people can probably sort themselves, but they could also build a multisig script out of the keys and m/n. It's been a while since I've even used the RPC, but remember well the time when I didn't have a bitcoin library to do it all.

I think it's worth including since once they continue using the flag, requests which mistakenly use the wrong order will reproduce the same redeem script (instead of always having a stateful order of public keys), and likewise with libraries that support it.

src/script/standard.cpp Outdated
CScript script;
std::vector<std::vector<unsigned char>> vEncoded;
vEncoded.reserve(keys.size());
BOOST_FOREACH(const CPubKey& key, keys) {

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Aug 18, 2017

Member

We're not using BOOST_FOREACH anymore I think. (Also below)

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Aug 21, 2017

Rebased and squashed a bit.

git checkout sort-multisigs && git fetch git://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin sort-multisigs && git reset --hard FETCH_HEAD && git push ...
@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch to 464827a Aug 24, 2017
@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch from 464827a Sep 7, 2017
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor

TheBlueMatt commented Sep 29, 2017

Concept ACK. Care to rebase?

@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch to 50e2ff5 Sep 30, 2017
@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Sep 30, 2017

Rebased, sorry for the delay. Updated to check that keys are compressed before allowing sorting, and added more tests for this.

Updated the docs/bips.md document to mention 0.15.1 instead of 0.15.0 (let me know whatever's best for this)

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor

TheBlueMatt commented Oct 2, 2017

Hmm, hate to reopen it, but now that we do actually have named arguments, could you rever to just adding a new boolean argument? options objects are just redundant now, and having options alias account in addmultisigaddress is just gross. Everything else seems fine at first glance.

@jnewbery I'd generally agree with you, but, at least in principal, I think BIP67 is worth it.

luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2017
…sig methods

Also add accounts parameter to vRPCConvertParams (required by RPC mappings test)

Github-Pull: bitcoin#8751
Rebased-From: 4833935
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2017
luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2017
sort_multisig test: check uncompressed keys are disallowed
sort_multisig: add test demonstrating sorting
wallet-accounts: test addmultisigaddress fails if sort=true and (wallet) address is uncompressed

Github-Pull: bitcoin#8751
Rebased-From: 50e2ff5
afk11 and others added 5 commits Nov 8, 2016
…g_redeemScript to allow sorting of public keys (BIP67)

addmultisig/createmultisig RPC documentation: Remove stray quotes from fSort parameter
sort_multisig test: check uncompressed keys are disallowed
sort_multisig: add test demonstrating sorting
wallet-accounts: test addmultisigaddress fails if sort=true and (wallet) address is uncompressed
@afk11 afk11 force-pushed the afk11:sort-multisigs branch from 50e2ff5 to e11cb50 Dec 2, 2017
@afk11
Copy link
Contributor Author

afk11 commented Dec 2, 2017

@TheBlueMatt that's fine, revised the PR now.

I missed the boat again for v0.15.1, suggestions for a release to mention in bips.md?

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 1, 2018

Hmm, hate to reopen it, but now that we do actually have named arguments, could you rever to just adding a new boolean argument? options objects are just redundant now, and having options alias account in addmultisigaddress is just gross. Everything else seems fine at first glance.

Strongly disagree. Named arguments is not a reason to have a terrible positional arguments API. Uncommon options should go through an options argument when positional arguments are used.

The account alias is merely for backward compatibility.

{
std::string msg = "addmultisigaddress nrequired [\"key\",...] ( \"account\" )\n"
std::string msg = "addmultisigaddress nrequired [\"key\",...] ( \"account\" ) ( sort )\n"

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Mar 2, 2018

Member

Please switch back to an options object for this.

"\nAdd a nrequired-to-sign multisignature address to the wallet. Requires a new wallet backup.\n"

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@luke-jr

luke-jr Mar 2, 2018

Member

This blank line won't be in the actual help, so has no purpose here.

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Aug 31, 2018

Closing and putting "up for grabs" label

@laanwj laanwj closed this Aug 31, 2018
@laanwj laanwj added the Up for grabs label Aug 31, 2018
@laanwj laanwj removed the Needs rebase label Oct 24, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

9 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.