Implement BIP 349 validation (OP_INTERNALKEY) #86
Conversation
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2025-08-ikey-inq-29
branch
from
f7e77ab to
24fb948
Compare
ajtowns
changed the title
|
|
||
| case OP_INTERNALKEY: { | ||
| // OP_INTERNALKEY is only available in Tapscript | ||
| if (sigversion == SigVersion::BASE || sigversion == SigVersion::WITNESS_V0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assert(sigversion != BASE && sigversion != WITNESS_V0) ?
assert(flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_INTERNALKEY) ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assert(sigversion != BASE && sigversion != WITNESS_V0)
I don't believe this is correct; added test that fails with this change.
assert(flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_INTERNALKEY)
This ends up being true post-activation, but I don't think would be prior?
We could add OP_INTERNALKEY to the disabled opcode area ala OP_CAT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't believe this is correct; added test that fails with this change.
Right; disabled opcodes are checked beforehand so can have an assert, but everything needs to duplicate the set_error from the default: section. 👍
assert(flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_INTERNALKEY)
This ends up being true post-activation, but I don't think would be prior?
Prior to activation, in the taproot case, it should be treated as OP_SUCCESS and this code shouldn't be reachable (CheckTapscriptOpSuccess will hit op_success_check via INQ_SUCCESS_OPCODES and either flags & discourage will force an error, or !(flags & enable) will force a success).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah right, if I leave in the script context gating, it will be fine!
| return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_BAD_OPCODE); | ||
| } | ||
| // Always present in Tapscript | ||
| assert(execdata.m_internal_key); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assert(sigversion == TAPSCRIPT) in that case?
|
|
||
| def is_op_success(o): | ||
| if o in [OP_INTERNALKEY]: | ||
| return False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess binana.json should be generating these too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created an issue, #93. Wasn't obvious to me how to sensibly make these functions depend on info in ../data/binana.json (or if that should get changed to binana.py like invalid_txs.py, or something else).
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2025-08-ikey-inq-29
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ed3c785 to
ab73a28
Compare
|
note to self to add pre-activation tests ala 76f9913 once other PR has settled |
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2025-08-ikey-inq-29
branch
from
ab73a28 to
df38a9f
Compare
|
Looks like we're running out of script flags for this PR. edit: will review bitcoin#32998 |
instagibbs
force-pushed
the
2025-08-ikey-inq-29
branch
from
df38a9f to
4287a3a
Compare
|
rebased on 64 bit flags work, added pre-activation test for IK |
|
|
||
| def spenders_internalkey_active(): | ||
|
|
||
| secs = [generate_privkey() for _ in range(8)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit you're generating 8 keys here but only using [0] and [1]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will touch if I do anything else
4 participants
No description provided.