Address send utils #67
Conversation
jharveyb
force-pushed
the
address-send-utils
branch
from
64a71db
to
3fab4ec
Compare
|
Kinda like coinselection and validation |
address/address.go
Outdated
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
| taprootPrivKey := txscript.TweakTaprootPrivKey(&privKey, nil) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is the correct way to tweak keys for Taproot when there is no script path spend / only key spend; I should double check against existing Taproot / wallet code though.
Yep, this is correct. Though I assume that BIP 86 would be used when just a keypath spend is needed...
Right now in #73 I just use a normal key for the script key, but I think it makes sense to make that a bip 86 key for now when we don't need any other fancy redemption
| @@ -127,6 +145,42 @@ func New(id asset.ID, familyKey *btcec.PublicKey, scriptKey btcec.PublicKey, | |||
| return &payload, nil | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // isValidInput verifies that the Taro commitment of the input contains an | |||
| // asset that could be spent to the given Taro address. | |||
| func isValidInput(input *commitment.TaroCommitment, address AddressTaro, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm aware this was broken out from the larger PR, but I don't think it belongs in the base address package. I'd expect it to live where ever the batched sender ultimately lives
address/address.go
Outdated
| Script() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // signVirtualKeySpend generates a signature over a Taro virtual transaction, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same goes for this function (re ideally living in another package). It should also ahve some test tacked laong w/ it, thouhg I think this was sort of covered in the vm package to test normal validation.
We could try to make an optimistic taroscript package to house these send/receive related utilities for now?
jharveyb
force-pushed
the
address-send-utils
branch
from
3fab4ec
to
b1c4fea
Compare
|
Ready for next round @jharveyb ? Please re-request once it's ready. |
Rebased and addressed feedback + removed signVirtualKeySpend() from this PR - Was planning to move some functions to a new |
itest: add more test cases that use grouped assets
Requires #56, split from #43.
Includes first step of sending, validating the sender input Taro tree against a receiver Taro address. I imagine most errors on sending should get caught at this step.
Would like feedback on how to test P2TR script creation and signVirtualKeySpend, if possible or necessary.