Demonstrate use of new `LockTime` type to replace u32 in `After`. #408

tcharding · 2022-05-13T04:37:33Z

This PR shows how we might use the new LockTime type from rust-bitcoin. (rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#994)

This PR is not intended to be a merge candidate.

Please note, this PR has changed a lot, comments below are mostly stale.

Currently all test pass when run locally, the bitcoin dependency has to be set in all the other dependencies (bitcoind, rust-bitcoincore-rpc). I only did this locally - you'll just have to believe me :)

apoelstra · 2022-05-13T21:40:05Z

Nice! concept ACK.

tcharding · 2022-05-16T06:55:43Z

This new timelock module could actually go in rust-bitcoin, there is nothing specific to miniscript in it? I've been learning quite a bit as I go along, the timelock module API is now kind of bloated. Any review that nacks methods or suggests re-names if my understanding is incorrect would be super appreciated please.

apoelstra · 2022-05-16T13:38:26Z

Oh, yeah, nice idea. I'd be in favor of bringing timelocks into rust-bitcoin. Not sure how the other maintainers would feel.

Then we could add accessor functions to Transaction that can read the sequence numbers and locktime..

tcharding · 2022-05-16T22:37:30Z

Then we could add accessor functions to Transaction that can read the sequence numbers and locktime..

Please review patch 2 of rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#994 to see if I got everything you wanted.

apoelstra · 2022-05-18T19:34:51Z

This looks great! I did not review it in detail.

b084010 Use terse functional programming terms (Tobin C. Harding) 6f3303d Improve docs on TimelockInfo (Tobin C. Harding) b2f6ef0 Add unit test for combine_threshold (Tobin C. Harding) a36f608 Be uniform in spelling of timelock (Tobin C. Harding) 51de643 Rename comibine methods (Tobin C. Harding) ef6803f Use > 1 instead of >= 2 (Tobin C. Harding) d1fdbaa Use LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD same as bitcoin core (Tobin C. Harding) Pull request description: Done while working on a [timelock module](rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#994). This is all the initial patches (except one) from #408 (which is a PR displaying usage of the new timelock module). Note, does _not_ do the 'make `TimelockInfo` fields pub crate' change - I was unsure if this was correct. Top commit has no ACKs. Tree-SHA512: aa54e2d884f7cb1fb5dcb2d828ada29830ac4a7a09b04797e6e2fb448df476cbb31345841735e6cf4d5b7b1f6783781859778805fffef708f259fe780c6ba677

Kixunil · 2022-06-30T17:07:47Z

src/miniscript/astelem.rs

                .push_opcode(opcodes::all::OP_EQUALVERIFY),
            Terminal::After(t) => builder
-                .push_int(t as i64)
+                .push_int(t.to_consensus_u32() as i64)


What's the point of having long-ass (thus informative) to_consensus_u32 and then being able to just .into() :D

i64::from() is also a possibility. My point is to avoid as.

My point is maybe we should we should get rid of that Into/From if we don't want users to willy-nilly convert to raw integer types.

I removed the From<u32> impls a few iterations ago for exactly the reason you state @dpc. Your suggestion @Kixunil makes me think we would have been fine to use to_u32 all along and not had the extremely long conversation about to_u32 and to_consensus_u32 :) I guess naming things is hard.

We're talking completely different types. Conversion from u32 to i64 is provided by core and it's a completely obvious conversion preserving the value as the same number.

Oh, I get it now. :)

Will add, thanks.

Kixunil · 2022-06-30T17:10:38Z

src/miniscript/astelem.rs

            Terminal::PkK(ref pk) => Ctx::pk_len(pk),
            Terminal::PkH(..) | Terminal::RawPkH(..) => 24,
-            Terminal::After(n) => script_num_size(n as usize) + 1,
+            Terminal::After(n) => script_num_size(n.to_consensus_u32() as usize) + 1,


The crate should have compile_error for platforms that have pointers smaller than 32 bits, didn't check if that's the case. And even better have an internal utility function for the cast to improve safety.

Kixunil · 2022-06-30T17:14:50Z

src/miniscript/types/mod.rs

                // number on the stack would be a 5 bytes signed integer but Miniscript's B type
                // only consumes 4 bytes from the stack.
-                if t == 0 || (t & SEQUENCE_LOCKTIME_DISABLE_FLAG) != 0 {
+                if t.to_consensus_u32() == 0 || (t.to_consensus_u32() & SEQUENCE_LOCKTIME_DISABLE_FLAG) != 0 {


Perhaps a reason to have is_zero() method in LockTime? Anyway, this looks nicer to me: t == LockTime::ZERO

Also WTF is sequence mixed with lock time here?! Looks very wrong to me!

Anyway, this looks nicer to me: t == LockTime::ZERO

👍

Sure thing.

(Its locktime::ZERO not LockTime::ZERO because associated consts don't exist for enums.)

Doing this led to adding pub use crate::blockdata::locktime::{self, LockTime}; in rust-bitcoin/src/lib.rs to make imports in miniscript a bit more ergonomic use bitocin::{locktime, LockTime}. Flagging that here because we do not export any of the other modules within blockdata.

ecause associated consts don't exist for enums

Did you miss my comment before demonstrating it's not the case?

Now includes LockTime::ZERO :)

Kixunil · 2022-06-30T17:24:30Z

src/policy/concrete.rs

+            Policy::After(n)  => {
+                if n.to_consensus_u32() == 0 {
+                    Err(PolicyError::ZeroTime)
+                } else if n.to_consensus_u32() > 2u32.pow(31) {


Look like 2u32.pow(32) should be a constant. (MAX_TIME: LockTime)

Correct me if I'm wrong @sanket1729 or @apoelstra but I think this is a miniscript restriction not a locktime restriction. If that's the case I don't think it should be part of rust-bitcoin.

Then it should be a constant in miniscript :)

You are correct @tcharding.

I would suggest putting the constant in rust-bitcoin as MAX_SCRIPTNUM_VALUE or something.

Added to rust-bitcoin/src/blockdata/constants.rs.

Kixunil · 2022-06-30T17:34:48Z

src/policy/semantic.rs

+                    // different as well as for any a/b that are the same except After/After.
+                    match (a, b) {
+                        (After(a), After(b)) => a.to_consensus_u32().cmp(&b.to_consensus_u32()),
+                        (a, b) => a.partial_cmp(b).unwrap_or(Ordering::Equal),


OK, per comment above mentioning canonical order it seems to make sense. I'd probably call the method canonically_sorted to make it more visible.

However unwrap_or doesn't seem right. None means these two can't be ordered. It'd be better to just list all variants and call cmp on them. Yes it's annoying but will statically prevent problems. A macro can help.

Yes I thought the same originally but I don't believe we can do so, e.g.

(Trivial, Unsatisfiable) => a.cmp(&b),

cmp is not implemented for Policy (that's the whole thing we are trying to get around). Or am I missing something?

We can do the exact thing derive does: return Ordering::Greater.

tcharding · 2022-07-01T01:19:33Z

Thanks for the review @Kixunil, I believe you may now start to see some of the difficulty in doing this work :) Its not trivial to code up the LockTime API using miniscript code without knowing miniscript well (which I do not).

0ed78e5 Add lock time types (Tobin C. Harding) 1390ee1 Add a max scriptnum constant (Tobin C. Harding) Pull request description: Implement a `LockTime` type that adds support for lock time values based on nLockTime and OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. For example usage in `rust-miniscript` please see rust-bitcoin/rust-miniscript#408. ### Notes: I probably should have opened a new PR, this is a total re-write and very different from what is being discussed below, sorry, my bad. This is just half of the 'timelock' story, its the easier half. The reason I switched terminology from timelock to locktime is that we have to compare two u32s so it does not make sense to call them _both_ timelocks. If I have missed, or apparently ignored, anything you said reviewers please accept my apology in advance, it was not intentional. The thread of discussion is long and this topic is complex. Please do restate your views liberally :) Here is a useful blog post I used while touching up on timelock specifics: https://medium.com/summa-technology/bitcoins-time-locks-27e0c362d7a1. It links to all the relevant bips too. ACKs for top commit: Kixunil: ACK 0ed78e5 apoelstra: ACK 0ed78e5 Tree-SHA512: 486fcce859b38fa1e8e6b11cd2f494462d6d7d1d9030d096ce6b260f6c9d0342b8952afe35152bdf3afe323a234a8165ac3d6c946304afcc13406d7a0489d75a

tcharding · 2022-09-11T23:27:18Z

LockTime has merged already, closing.

b0840100b4e87f798caef35fb03ab6f3b914ed46 Use terse functional programming terms (Tobin C. Harding) 6f3303d5eba527d551c03dbcfe9234f69cf2d2f3 Improve docs on TimelockInfo (Tobin C. Harding) b2f6ef04a0d819a18332660c904d8802bfa20975 Add unit test for combine_threshold (Tobin C. Harding) a36f6085f0e96fbd74bab086c9cfa3d5ad35367e Be uniform in spelling of timelock (Tobin C. Harding) 51de643d3cdb33c389a62ab475fe3d6d39f65b9b Rename comibine methods (Tobin C. Harding) ef6803f946e285549157da161fce71217383c032 Use > 1 instead of >= 2 (Tobin C. Harding) d1fdbaaf3f5af43f1d201a3d0dfbc15f877b0888 Use LOCKTIME_THRESHOLD same as bitcoin core (Tobin C. Harding) Pull request description: Done while working on a [timelock module](rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#994). This is all the initial patches (except one) from rust-bitcoin/rust-miniscript#408 (which is a PR displaying usage of the new timelock module). Note, does _not_ do the 'make `TimelockInfo` fields pub crate' change - I was unsure if this was correct. Top commit has no ACKs. Tree-SHA512: aa54e2d884f7cb1fb5dcb2d828ada29830ac4a7a09b04797e6e2fb448df476cbb31345841735e6cf4d5b7b1f6783781859778805fffef708f259fe780c6ba677

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch from 27e72b0 to 779a715 Compare May 16, 2022 06:52

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch from 779a715 to 3b5cf23 Compare May 16, 2022 22:28

tcharding mentioned this pull request May 16, 2022

Add a LockTime type rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#994

Merged

tcharding changed the title ~~Add timelocks module to replace u32 in After/Older~~ Demonstrate use of new timelocks module to replace u32 in After/Older May 16, 2022

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch 2 times, most recently from 4d2d119 to 726b086 Compare May 16, 2022 23:33

tcharding mentioned this pull request May 19, 2022

Improve timelock code #414

Merged

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch from 726b086 to 59f8593 Compare May 19, 2022 04:03

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch from 59f8593 to e5c5e2f Compare June 3, 2022 01:52

tcharding changed the title ~~Demonstrate use of new timelocks module to replace u32 in After/Older~~ Demonstrate use of new LockTime type to replace u32 in After. Jun 3, 2022

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch 4 times, most recently from 2f1ae91 to 2b4a71e Compare June 6, 2022 01:14

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch 2 times, most recently from 0bd872c to 20e7463 Compare June 17, 2022 05:28

sanket1729 mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2022

Introducing Older/After Translation functionality #435

Open

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch 4 times, most recently from 019d0ff to 93eca56 Compare June 29, 2022 01:47

Kixunil reviewed Jun 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

Kixunil mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2022

Make sequence a newtype rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#1082

Closed

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch from 93eca56 to 8e58db9 Compare July 1, 2022 01:25

WIP: Use new LockTime type

c98de73

tcharding force-pushed the 05-06-after-older branch from 8e58db9 to c98de73 Compare July 11, 2022 00:22

tcharding mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2022

Add new type for sequence rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#1093

Merged

LLFourn mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2022

timestamp timelocks are not satisfied bitcoindevkit/bdk_wallet#183

Open

tcharding closed this Sep 11, 2022

tcharding deleted the 05-06-after-older branch December 21, 2022 01:57

ChrisCho-H mentioned this pull request Aug 30, 2024

fix: deprecate wrong and unused max script num rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#3276

Merged

Demonstrate use of new LockTime type to replace u32 in After. #408

Demonstrate use of new LockTime type to replace u32 in After. #408

Uh oh!

Conversation

tcharding commented May 13, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

apoelstra commented May 13, 2022

Uh oh!

tcharding commented May 16, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

apoelstra commented May 16, 2022

Uh oh!

tcharding commented May 16, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

apoelstra commented May 18, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dpc Jun 30, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tcharding Jul 1, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tcharding commented Jul 1, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tcharding commented Sep 11, 2022

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Demonstrate use of new `LockTime` type to replace u32 in `After`. #408

Demonstrate use of new `LockTime` type to replace u32 in `After`. #408

tcharding commented May 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tcharding commented May 16, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tcharding commented May 16, 2022 •

edited

Loading

dpc Jun 30, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tcharding Jul 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

tcharding commented Jul 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading