{ "number": 35301, "repo": "bitcoin/bitcoin", "url": "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35301", "title": "Silent Payments: Implement bip352 (take 2)", "author": "Eunovo", "author_association": "MEMBER", "created_at": "2026-05-16T03:46:01Z", "updated_at": "2026-09-17T01:45:21Z", "age_days": 124, "draft": false, "labels": [], "milestone": null, "base": "master", "head_sha": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "head_ref": "implement-bip352", "head_repo": "Eunovo/bitcoin", "head_history": [ { "t": "2026-05-18T16:03:01Z", "sha": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9" }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:56:55Z", "sha": "804d7ae60bfb4667325b9c4c17f8d8eb12d1e2b6" }, { "t": "2026-05-22T05:26:29Z", "sha": "fd56daa891ad9370637c8bf7574c1712b6859a20" }, { "t": "2026-05-25T09:14:36Z", "sha": "80d3a4853a9952b3781cce88d13232dc8bcea447" }, { "t": "2026-05-29T11:05:15Z", "sha": "43dc84da070a282e3ed90bceefe616baa4a6c4c5" }, { "t": "2026-06-07T11:02:40Z", "sha": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6" }, { "t": "2026-06-23T09:58:43Z", "sha": "35be12454989519d128c3b1523a31938db061955" }, { "t": "2026-06-26T09:45:05Z", "sha": "30f6396c7df7d4329e517f5f97dcafe29c68b4e8" }, { "t": "2026-07-06T16:45:58Z", "sha": "0ab06bda74011e39fa616edbfb7e81f365e8c74c" }, { "t": "2026-07-07T12:05:40Z", "sha": "36b553a1273b9fdbfeefc3108b387c6dc846ef81" }, { "t": "2026-07-23T22:11:40Z", "sha": "606c1f4b49bfa882c5dd8cd3abe55476aad4996b" }, { "t": "2026-07-24T10:51:18Z", "sha": "90c2898fe2206a33e71d854a8f93e2f5709e0688" }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:37:20Z", "sha": "dde9ab61b53a60b55f722f2a16bcce33f95b7ba6" }, { "t": "2026-08-10T16:13:39Z", "sha": "b57cd63d760b96e645004970b38ae8c4e8de0692" }, { "t": "2026-08-10T17:19:01Z", "sha": "ed66407d72697ee4e00b1ae62f5a6a06d60729f0" }, { "t": "2026-08-11T13:43:14Z", "sha": "4e7ac8f3e451bb3ee38c5ff8701b39c13ecc6de4" }, { "t": "2026-08-12T10:43:21Z", "sha": "1894ee3a4a7669330ec0999ce510dc2d92eb1c65" }, { "t": "2026-08-15T01:08:24Z", "sha": "b905cea56f5ca46f0d7e12643c9dd9045706b155" }, { "t": "2026-08-17T17:54:53Z", "sha": "0bcb949e5d1ac72089dcef54fa5e56d4c8bf9c7c" }, { "t": "2026-08-24T16:14:20Z", "sha": "12515f645eaf22ecbea6ba0b3827c550f2e656cb" }, { "t": "2026-09-02T14:59:10Z", "sha": "d3218d87019526c625e0235bf6209f4c78713a4a" }, { "t": "2026-09-02T15:17:33Z", "sha": "6b5a993e808d35d27b6f23c8e1b36c2601e5e2b6" }, { "t": "2026-09-04T14:14:27Z", "sha": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e" }, { "t": "2026-09-16T13:43:29Z", "sha": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f" } ], "additions": 6946, "deletions": 0, "changed_files": 10, "commit_count": 4, "size_bucket": "XL", "mergeable_state": "clean", "bot": { "drahtbot": { "present": true, "reviews": { "concept_ack": [ { "login": "w0xlt", "url": "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35301#issuecomment-4490760075" }, { "login": "rkrux", "url": "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35301#issuecomment-4490966505" }, { "login": "josibake", "url": "https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35301#issuecomment-5280606718" } ] }, "conflicts": [ { "number": 36257, "title": "qa: assert_equals -> assert_true/assert_false", "author": "hodlinator" }, { "number": 36167, "title": "[RFC] Enable `-Wunused`", "author": "fanquake" }, { "number": 35793, "title": "Implement BIP 54 (Consensus Cleanup) without mainnet activation", "author": "darosior" }, { "number": 35642, "title": "headersync: do parameter search at runtime", "author": "sipa" } ] } }, "acks_parsed": { "w0xlt": { "kind": "concept_ack", "hash": null, "t": "2026-05-19T18:21:52Z", "stale": false }, "rkrux": { "kind": "concept_ack", "hash": "aca8a8f", "t": "2026-05-19T18:47:37Z", "stale": false }, "josibake": { "kind": "concept_ack", "hash": null, "t": "2026-08-13T12:47:34Z", "stale": false } }, "acks_tally": { "ack": 0, "stale_ack": 0, "concept_ack": 3, "approach_ack": 0, "nack": 0, "concept_nack": 0, "approach_nack": 0 }, "reviews": { "approved": 0, "changes_requested": 0, "distinct_reviewers": [ "josibake", "rkrux", "rustaceanrob", "sedited", "theStack", "w0xlt" ] }, "signals": { "needs_rebase": false, "ci_failed": false, "mergeable_state": "clean", "last_author_activity": "2026-09-16T13:58:08Z", "last_reviewer_activity": "2026-09-10T09:55:07Z", "last_reviewer": "josibake", "author_silent_days": 1, "waiting_on_author_days": 0, "days_since_update": 0 }, "refs": { "mentioned": [ 34225, 36203 ], "depends_on": [], "fixes": [], "linked_issues": [], "references": [ { "number": 34225, "type": "pull", "state": "closed", "merged": true, "merged_at": "2026-05-15", "title": "refactor, key: move `CreateMuSig2{Nonce,PartialSig}` functions to `musig.{h,cpp}` module" }, { "number": 36203, "type": "pull", "state": "closed", "merged": true, "merged_at": "2026-09-09", "title": "Update secp256k1 subtree to latest master" } ], "conflicts": [ 36257, 36167, 35793, 35642 ] }, "stack": { "shares_commits_with": [], "based_on": [], "base_for": [] }, "review_paths": [ "src/addresstype.cpp", "src/addresstype.h", "src/bech32.h", "src/common/bip352.cpp", "src/common/bip352.h", "src/kernel/chainparams.h", "src/key.cpp", "src/key.h", "src/key_io.cpp", "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "src/test/data/bip352_send_and_receive_vectors.json", "src/test/key_io_tests.cpp", "test/functional/rpc_validateaddress.py" ], "body": "This PR is part of integrating silent payments into Bitcoin Core. It is the second iteration of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28122, now based on https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1765.\n\nThis project is tracked in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28536.\n\nBIP352\nThis PR focuses strictly on the BIP logic and attempts to separate it from the wallet and transaction implementation details. This is accomplished by working directly with public and private keys, instead of needing a wallet backend and transactions for testing. Labels for the receiver are optional and thus deferred for a later PR.\n\nTest vectors from the BIP are included as unit tests.", "commits": [ { "sha": "0dd01902e94af804fa5d81ea8992efc19944eb39", "date": "2026-09-16T10:23:49Z", "message": "crypto: add read-only method to KeyPair\n\nAdd a method for passing a KeyPair object to secp256k1 functions expecting a secp256k1_keypair.\nThis allows for passing a KeyPair directly to a secp256k1 function without needing to create a\ntemporary secp256k1_keypair object.\n\nCo-authored-by: Rob " }, { "sha": "a3444fb2d6b485214e4d99273c3b8014c45f665a", "date": "2026-09-16T10:23:49Z", "message": "Add \"sp\" HRP" }, { "sha": "7e0cc68ecaa7d69cd4c04c5ecf6a643bda9b898d", "date": "2026-09-16T12:58:44Z", "message": "common: add bip352.{h,cpp} secp256k1 module\n\nWrap the silentpayments module from libsecp256k1. This is placed in\ncommon as it is intended to be used by:\n\n * RPCs: for parsing addresses\n * Wallet: for sending, receiving, spending silent payments outputs\n * Node: for creating silent payments indexes for light clients\n\nCo-authored-by: Rob " }, { "sha": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "date": "2026-09-16T12:58:44Z", "message": "tests: add BIP352 test vectors as unit tests\n\nUse the test vectors to test sending and receiving. A few cases are not\ncovered here, namely anything that requires testing specific to the\nwallet. For example:\n\n* Taproot script path spending is not tested, as that is better tested in\n a wallets coin selection / signing logic\n* Re-computing outputs during RBF is not tested, as that is better\n tested in a wallets RBF logic" } ], "timeline": [ { "t": "2026-05-18T01:43:50Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b: Since #34225 (commit f36d89f4363a25f7948a0f7096201ef8e15045d8), the sign context can be accessed via `GetSecp256k1SignContext`, i.e. by using this in the API calls below, this line and the symbol visibility change in key.cpp are not needed anymore" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T01:59:35Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b: typo: s/uint156/uint256/" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T02:04:03Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b: nit: missing doxygen `@param` entry for `prevouts_summary` above" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T02:10:43Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "804d7ae60bfb4667325b9c4c17f8d8eb12d1e2b6", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b:\n```suggestion\n ret &= secp256k1_ec_pubkey_parse(secp256k1_context_static, &recipient_obj.spend_pubkey, recipients[i].m_spend_pubkey.data(), recipients[i].m_spend_pubkey.size());\n```\nto ensure both `pubkey_parse` are successful (or alternatively, could place an extra `assert(ret)` line after the first call)" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T02:21:07Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b: IIUC, this call could fail if a transaction is scanned where one of the P2TR outputs encodes an invalid x-only pubkey (i.e. not on the curve), so I suppose this should be changed to e.g. `if (!ret) continue;` to avoid a crash (unless we demand from the caller that `tx_outputs` only contain valid x-only pubkeys already)" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T02:24:36Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b: comment doesn't apply" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T02:30:10Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "ba4b734ec89d590951574d2714867afab27d1347", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in ba4b734ec89d590951574d2714867afab27d1347: nit: could add a corresponding new entry to the comment list a few lines above" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T02:37:33Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/bech32.h", "commit": "ba4b734ec89d590951574d2714867afab27d1347", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in ba4b734ec89d590951574d2714867afab27d1347: pedantic nit: according to BIP-352 the limit is [1023](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/6deafd07ff5d38c7d69b27530ba55a4ee038cde7/bip-0352.mediawiki?plain=1#L219) (not sure which of the two values make more sense, as I'm not very familiar with BIP-173; for SPV0 it doesn't matter anyways)" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:03:01Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:03:42Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": 3255922097, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:03:51Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": 3255958806, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:04:02Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9", "in_reply_to": 3255968343, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:04:25Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": 3256003872, "text": "Changed to `if (!ret) continue;`" }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:04:39Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "6355a904945d0d5704032e464f20a69a5d82a91b", "in_reply_to": 3256010958, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:06:44Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "804d7ae60bfb4667325b9c4c17f8d8eb12d1e2b6", "in_reply_to": 3255981201, "text": "I added an `assert(ret);` after the first call, so that it is easier to determine which of the pubkeys is invalid, in the event of a crash." }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:10:29Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/bech32.h", "commit": "ba4b734ec89d590951574d2714867afab27d1347", "in_reply_to": 3256039588, "text": "Changed to `1023` to match the [BIP specification](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/6deafd07ff5d38c7d69b27530ba55a4ee038cde7/bip-0352.mediawiki?plain=1#L219). AFAICT, there is no reason to use `1024`; the most likely reason for it being `1024` is that the BIP might have stated `1024` and was updated to `1023` at some point in the past." }, { "t": "2026-05-18T16:11:37Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "ba4b734ec89d590951574d2714867afab27d1347", "in_reply_to": 3256023741, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-19T18:21:52Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "text": "Concept ACK" }, { "t": "2026-05-19T18:47:37Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "rkrux", "assoc": "MEMBER", "text": "Concept ACK aca8a8f" }, { "t": "2026-05-20T14:01:01Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/kernel/chainparams.h", "commit": "602835e08070cab981842ce4cd5065730b3e8c48", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 602835e08070cab981842ce4cd5065730b3e8c48 (and 6b71f145ccfdbfe41f7f666d373efb0a68e30375 ff.): nitty nit: personally, I would slightly prefer to use the plural form in the code base since it's the widely used protocol name\n```suggestion\n const std::string& SilentPaymentsHRP() const { return silent_payments_hrp; }\n```" }, { "t": "2026-05-20T14:35:30Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "6b71f145ccfdbfe41f7f666d373efb0a68e30375", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6b71f145ccfdbfe41f7f666d373efb0a68e30375: Related to a recent off-band discussion we had, I wonder if we should check the validity of the pubkeys (i.e. following the compressed pubkey format and being on the curve) already at this point, e.g. via\n```\n if (!scan_pukey.IsFullyValid() || !spend_pubkey.IsFullyValid()) return CNoDestination();\n```\nWe don't do the same when decoding taproot addresses (currently the only other address format that directly encodes public keys, without hashing), but the difference with SP here is that an actual output script can't even be derived in this case, so it could make more sense to reject as early as possible." }, { "t": "2026-05-20T14:54:44Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/data/bip352_send_and_receive_vectors.json", "commit": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9: looks like test vectors .json file needs to be updated (to BIP-352 version 1.1.1, see latest change https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2142)." }, { "t": "2026-05-20T14:56:42Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 0287192f099299fb7a0b7f83f5e3bfb3174ed152: unless I'm missing something, there is nothing wrong in checking that the witness stack is non-empty before accessing it, and the TODO could simply be removed" }, { "t": "2026-05-20T16:27:35Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "6b71f145ccfdbfe41f7f666d373efb0a68e30375", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 6b71f145ccfdbfe41f7f666d373efb0a68e30375: pedantic nit: the version byte is not part of the `ConvertBits` input, i.e. this should be\n```suggestion\n // ConvertBits will expand each 8-bit byte into 5-bit chunks,\n // i.e. 1 + (66 * 8 / 5) = 106.6 -> so we reserve 107\n data_out.reserve(107);\n```\n(verified that `data_out` has indeed a size of 107 by adding debug outputs)" }, { "t": "2026-05-20T16:31:17Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "commit": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9: could do a round-trip test in the if body, to also add test coverage for encoding SP addresses, e.g.\n```\n auto encoded_sp_addr = EncodeDestination(*sp);\n BOOST_CHECK(encoded_sp_addr == silent_payment_addresses[i].get_str());\n```" }, { "t": "2026-05-20T16:35:45Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "commit": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9: this function is currently unused" }, { "t": "2026-05-21T00:17:58Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "fd56daa891ad9370637c8bf7574c1712b6859a20", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 5b0d46e13980f227908186dfdd529d030ff7400a: I suppose using std::unordered_map for the labels cache would be the better choice for performance reasons, at least if we ever support a large number of labels (it doesn't matter until actual SP receiving support is implemented though, and can be re-evaluated and benchmarked then)" }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:56:55Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "804d7ae60bfb4667325b9c4c17f8d8eb12d1e2b6" }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:57:16Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "commit": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9", "in_reply_to": 3275576701, "text": "Removed." }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:58:12Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "commit": "aca8a8f3da02b925f8975ffa6f31468fafdc2ef9", "in_reply_to": 3275551824, "text": "I added some tests for Encoding and Decoding `V0SilentPaymentsDestination` to `key_io_tests.cpp` in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35301/commits/15a2bdd5a18ac6d543b669f9230ea5bd7352c497" }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:58:27Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "6b71f145ccfdbfe41f7f666d373efb0a68e30375", "in_reply_to": 3275529941, "text": "Updated." }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:58:46Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": 3274950527, "text": "Removed." }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:59:29Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/data/bip352_send_and_receive_vectors.json", "commit": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "in_reply_to": 3274936420, "text": "Updated to the test_vectors in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2142" }, { "t": "2026-05-21T14:59:39Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "6b71f145ccfdbfe41f7f666d373efb0a68e30375", "in_reply_to": 3274798692, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-21T15:00:53Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/kernel/chainparams.h", "commit": "602835e08070cab981842ce4cd5065730b3e8c48", "in_reply_to": 3274544497, "text": "Done. I also pluralised the name in other function names, variable names and comments." }, { "t": "2026-05-21T15:01:34Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "rkrux", "assoc": "MEMBER", "text": "Does https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1765 need to be merged first for this to be reviewed (and later merged)?" }, { "t": "2026-05-21T15:22:21Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "text": "[quoted text omitted]\n\nThere are no major API changes expected at this point in [bitcoin-core/secp256k1#1765](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1765), so I'd say this PR can be already reviewed now. For merging it though, the SP module merge and secp256k1 subtree update have to go in first. Obviously, any review in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1765 would be much appreciated :)" }, { "t": "2026-05-22T05:26:29Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "fd56daa891ad9370637c8bf7574c1712b6859a20" }, { "t": "2026-05-22T15:03:48Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 5b0d46e13980f227908186dfdd529d030ff7400a: could `assert(ret)` here as well, as this serialization should never fail" }, { "t": "2026-05-22T15:07:40Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key.cpp", "commit": "5b0d46e13980f227908186dfdd529d030ff7400a", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 5b0d46e13980f227908186dfdd529d030ff7400a: this change isn't needed anymore, since you are using the `GetSecp256k1SignContext()` access function now" }, { "t": "2026-05-22T15:11:33Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "7df966bc37fe640660ff8a9cd55a9fd5331527dc", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 7df966bc37fe640660ff8a9cd55a9fd5331527dc: consistency micro-nit: in other destination classes, the `private:` part comes before the public one, so could move this up" }, { "t": "2026-05-22T15:13:49Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "7df966bc37fe640660ff8a9cd55a9fd5331527dc", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 7df966bc37fe640660ff8a9cd55a9fd5331527dc: nit: I think this could be simplified to a one-liner\n```suggestion\n return (a.m_scan_pubkey == b.m_scan_pubkey) && (a.m_spend_pubkey == b.m_spend_pubkey);\n```\n\nwithout changing the logic or performance (didn't verify though)." }, { "t": "2026-05-22T15:22:47Z", "kind": "review", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "state": "COMMENTED", "commit": "fd56daa891ad9370637c8bf7574c1712b6859a20", "text": "Thanks for the quick follow-up! Left a few more comments, most of them being nits. Mostly reviewed the parts around the SP module API calls so far, will take a closer look at higher-level parts of the protocol (particularly the pubkey extraction logic in `GetPubKeyFromInput`) within the next days." }, { "t": "2026-05-25T09:14:36Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "80d3a4853a9952b3781cce88d13232dc8bcea447" }, { "t": "2026-05-25T09:59:15Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "7df966bc37fe640660ff8a9cd55a9fd5331527dc", "in_reply_to": 3289351639, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-25T09:59:26Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "7df966bc37fe640660ff8a9cd55a9fd5331527dc", "in_reply_to": 3289339136, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-25T09:59:43Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key.cpp", "commit": "5b0d46e13980f227908186dfdd529d030ff7400a", "in_reply_to": 3289316512, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-25T10:00:11Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "in_reply_to": 3289294878, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-25T10:02:46Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "fd56daa891ad9370637c8bf7574c1712b6859a20", "in_reply_to": 3277893263, "text": "Changed to `std::unordered_map`, but that required that I change the labels cache from `map` to `unordered_map` because `CPubKey` doesn't have a hash function suitable for use with `unordered_map`." }, { "t": "2026-05-27T00:32:29Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 061edd8f427674914d98a22e118122fd8dd0a0c8: currently, SP addresses with (not yet specified) versions 1-30 are already accepted and get shoehorned into `V0SilentPaymentsDestination`s. Is that intentional? I guess it's not and it's fine to only allow V0 destinations for now, but if yes, we should probably add tests for v1-v30 addresses; might be a bit tricky though as the encoding round-trip tests would obviously fail." }, { "t": "2026-05-27T23:27:28Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "80d3a4853a9952b3781cce88d13232dc8bcea447", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "`GenerateSilentPaymentsTaprootDestinations()` documents `sp_dests` keys as final `tx.vout` positions, but returns generated outputs under contiguous indexes `0..n-1`.\n\nIf SP outputs are mixed with regular outputs, callers would assign them to the wrong positions; the original map keys should be preserved.\n\nDiff:\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/common/bip352.cpp b/src/common/bip352.cpp\nindex 1580e1f8f8..0ac71d456f 100644\n--- a/src/common/bip352.cpp\n+++ b/src/common/bip352.cpp\n@@ -234,8 +234,11 @@ std::optional> GenerateSilentPaymentsTaprootD\n bool ret;\n std::map tr_dests;\n std::vector recipients;\n+ std::vector positions;\n recipients.reserve(sp_dests.size());\n- for (const auto& [_, addr] : sp_dests) {\n+ positions.reserve(sp_dests.size());\n+ for (const auto& [pos, addr] : sp_dests) {\n+ positions.push_back(pos);\n recipients.push_back(addr);\n }\n std::vector outputs = CreateOutputs(recipients, plain_keys, taproot_keys, smallest_outpoint);\n@@ -245,7 +248,7 @@ std::optional> GenerateSilentPaymentsTaprootD\n unsigned char xonly_pubkey_bytes[32];\n ret = secp256k1_xonly_pubkey_serialize(secp256k1_context_static, xonly_pubkey_bytes, &outputs[i]);\n assert(ret);\n- tr_dests[i] = WitnessV1Taproot{XOnlyPubKey{xonly_pubkey_bytes}};\n+ tr_dests[positions[i]] = WitnessV1Taproot{XOnlyPubKey{xonly_pubkey_bytes}};\n }\n return tr_dests;\n }\n```\n\nTest:\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\nindex cd5fda38da..bc05fcf107 100644\n--- a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n@@ -27,6 +27,25 @@ CKey ParseHexToCKey(std::string hex) {\n return output;\n };\n\n+BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_preserves_requested_output_indexes)\n+{\n+ CKey sender_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\");\n+ CKey scan_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002\");\n+ CKey spend_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003\");\n+ V0SilentPaymentsDestination sp_dest{scan_key.GetPubKey(), spend_key.GetPubKey()};\n+ std::map sp_dests{{2, sp_dest}, {5, sp_dest}};\n+ COutPoint smallest_outpoint{Txid::FromHex(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\").value(), 0};\n+\n+ auto generated = bip352::GenerateSilentPaymentsTaprootDestinations(sp_dests, {sender_key}, {}, smallest_outpoint);\n+\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE(generated.has_value());\n+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(generated->size(), sp_dests.size());\n+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(generated->count(0), 0);\n+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(generated->count(1), 0);\n+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(generated->count(2), 1);\n+ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(generated->count(5), 1);\n+}\n+\n BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_send_and_receive_test_vectors)\n {\n UniValue tests;\n```" }, { "t": "2026-05-28T00:08:24Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "`GetSilentPaymentsPrevoutsSummary()` currently still builds scan data when a transaction has an eligible input plus another input spending an unknown SegWit version (>1) prevout.\n\nBIP352 v0 says those transactions [must be skipped entirely](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0352.mediawiki#cite_note-skip_txs_with_unknown_prevouts_11), so this should return no prevouts summary as soon as any spent prevout is witness v2+.\n\nDiff:\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/common/bip352.cpp b/src/common/bip352.cpp\nindex 1580e1f8f8..2ccae373c8 100644\n--- a/src/common/bip352.cpp\n+++ b/src/common/bip352.cpp\n@@ -152,6 +152,12 @@ std::optional GetSilentPaymentsPrevoutsSummary(const std::vecto\n for (const CTxIn& txin : vin) {\n const Coin& coin = coins.at(txin.prevout);\n Assert(!coin.IsSpent());\n+ int witness_version{0};\n+ std::vector witness_program;\n+ // BIP352 v0 skips transactions spending future witness versions.\n+ if (coin.out.scriptPubKey.IsWitnessProgram(witness_version, witness_program) && witness_version > 1) {\n+ return std::nullopt;\n+ }\n tx_outpoints.emplace_back(txin.prevout);\n auto pubkey = GetPubKeyFromInput(txin, coin.out.scriptPubKey);\n if (pubkey.has_value()) {\n```\n\nTest:\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\nindex cd5fda38da..b27823acd4 100644\n--- a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n@@ -27,6 +27,25 @@ CKey ParseHexToCKey(std::string hex) {\n return output;\n };\n\n+BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_skips_transactions_spending_unknown_segwit_versions)\n+{\n+ CKey key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\");\n+ CPubKey pubkey = key.GetPubKey();\n+ COutPoint eligible_outpoint{Txid::FromHex(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\").value(), 0};\n+ COutPoint unknown_segwit_outpoint{Txid::FromHex(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002\").value(), 0};\n+\n+ CTxIn eligible_input{eligible_outpoint};\n+ eligible_input.scriptWitness.stack.emplace_back(64, 0);\n+ eligible_input.scriptWitness.stack.emplace_back(pubkey.begin(), pubkey.end());\n+\n+ std::map coins;\n+ coins[eligible_outpoint] = Coin{CTxOut{{}, GetScriptForDestination(WitnessV0KeyHash{pubkey})}, 0, false};\n+ coins[unknown_segwit_outpoint] = Coin{CTxOut{{}, GetScriptForDestination(WitnessUnknown{2, std::vector(32, 1)})}, 0, false};\n+\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE(bip352::GetSilentPaymentsPrevoutsSummary({eligible_input}, coins).has_value());\n+ BOOST_CHECK(!bip352::GetSilentPaymentsPrevoutsSummary({eligible_input, CTxIn{unknown_segwit_outpoint}}, coins).has_value());\n+}\n+\n BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_send_and_receive_test_vectors)\n {\n UniValue tests;\n```" }, { "t": "2026-05-28T00:31:02Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "Silent Payments decoding looks too permissive: it detects SP addresses by `HRP` prefix and then accepts both `BECH32` and `BECH32M` without requiring `dec.hrp == params.SilentPaymentsHRP()`.\n\nThat can make `spx`... or Bech32-checksummed SP payloads decode as valid SP destinations, while [BIP352 should require the exact SP HRP and Bech32m](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0352.mediawiki#address-encoding).\n\nDiff:\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/key_io.cpp b/src/key_io.cpp\nindex 335f02a5ba..e77f616cc7 100644\n--- a/src/key_io.cpp\n+++ b/src/key_io.cpp\n@@ -158,6 +158,14 @@ CTxDestination DecodeDestination(const std::string& str, const CChainParams& par\n return CNoDestination();\n }\n if (is_silent_payment) {\n+ if (dec.hrp != params.SilentPaymentsHRP()) {\n+ error_str = strprintf(\"Invalid or unsupported prefix for Silent Payments address (expected %s, got %s).\", params.SilentPaymentsHRP(), dec.hrp);\n+ return CNoDestination();\n+ }\n+ if (dec.encoding != bech32::Encoding::BECH32M) {\n+ error_str = \"Silent Payments address must use Bech32m checksum\";\n+ return CNoDestination();\n+ }\n if (!ConvertBits<5, 8, false>([&](unsigned char c) { data.push_back(c); }, dec.data.begin() + 1, dec.data.end())) {\n return CNoDestination();\n }\n```\n\nTest:\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/test/data/key_io_invalid.json b/src/test/data/key_io_invalid.json\nindex 0505dc9e8b..13b3fb0526 100644\n--- a/src/test/data/key_io_invalid.json\n+++ b/src/test/data/key_io_invalid.json\n@@ -209,6 +209,12 @@\n [\n \"TB1Q3F9WGNXE9ZMTTMDN5VKVKHYZ8Y0LCV72YV7V5LSXTJXEYHNHEHASLYL0TZ\"\n ],\n+ [\n+ \"spx1qq22l5s6l9460ww6t4tkzsy2a7zejurcmzz35pt0ffrzk5erlaykdcqugecjjnjqf7ggq39vl6wexjlm00n66z94v675n7wcux6d2krr68g37pn04\"\n+ ],\n+ [\n+ \"sp1qq22l5s6l9460ww6t4tkzsy2a7zejurcmzz35pt0ffrzk5erlaykdcqugecjjnjqf7ggq39vl6wexjlm00n66z94v675n7wcux6d2krr68gcwu9kg\"\n+ ],\n [\n \"sp1qqgqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq2qugecjjnjqf7ggq39vl6wexjlm00n66z94v675n7wcux6d2krr68g25havg\"\n ]," }, { "t": "2026-05-28T00:53:47Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "80d3a4853a9952b3781cce88d13232dc8bcea447", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "`ScanForSilentPaymentsOutputs` skips invalid x-only taproot outputs, but still stores pointers using the original `tx_outputs` index into the compacted `tx_output_objs` vector.\n\nIf an invalid output appears before a valid one, this can take `&tx_output_objs[i]` out of bounds or point at the wrong object during scanning.\n\nDiff:\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/common/bip352.cpp b/src/common/bip352.cpp\nindex 1580e1f8f8..8d019f3469 100644\n--- a/src/common/bip352.cpp\n+++ b/src/common/bip352.cpp\n@@ -316,19 +316,19 @@ std::optional> ScanForSilentPaymentsOutputs(\n tx_output_objs.reserve(tx_outputs.size());\n tx_output_ptrs.reserve(tx_outputs.size());\n\n- for (size_t i = 0; i < tx_outputs.size(); i++) {\n- secp256k1_silentpayments_found_output found_output{};\n+ for (const XOnlyPubKey& tx_output : tx_outputs) {\n secp256k1_xonly_pubkey tx_output_obj;\n- found_output_objs.push_back(found_output);\n- found_output_ptrs.push_back(&found_output_objs[i]);\n- ret = secp256k1_xonly_pubkey_parse(secp256k1_context_static, &tx_output_obj, tx_outputs[i].data());\n+ ret = secp256k1_xonly_pubkey_parse(secp256k1_context_static, &tx_output_obj, tx_output.data());\n if (!ret) {\n // It is possible that a P2TR output encodes an invalid x-only pubkey.\n continue;\n }\n tx_output_objs.push_back(tx_output_obj);\n- tx_output_ptrs.push_back(&tx_output_objs[i]);\n+ tx_output_ptrs.push_back(&tx_output_objs.back());\n+ found_output_objs.emplace_back();\n+ found_output_ptrs.push_back(&found_output_objs.back());\n }\n+ if (tx_output_ptrs.empty()) return {};\n\n // Parse the pubkeys into secp pubkey and xonly_pubkey objects\n ret = secp256k1_ec_pubkey_parse(secp256k1_context_static, &spend_pubkey_obj, recipient_spend_pubkey.data(), recipient_spend_pubkey.size());\n```\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\nindex cd5fda38da..ca9424507d 100644\n--- a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n@@ -197,5 +197,39 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_send_and_receive_test_vectors)\n }\n }\n }\n+\n+BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_scan_skips_invalid_taproot_outputs)\n+{\n+ CKey sender_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\");\n+ CKey scan_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002\");\n+ CKey spend_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003\");\n+ const COutPoint outpoint{Txid::FromHex(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\").value(), 0};\n+\n+ std::map sp_dests;\n+ sp_dests.emplace(0, V0SilentPaymentsDestination{scan_key.GetPubKey(), spend_key.GetPubKey()});\n+ const auto sp_tr_dests = bip352::GenerateSilentPaymentsTaprootDestinations(sp_dests, {sender_key}, {}, outpoint);\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE(sp_tr_dests.has_value());\n+ const XOnlyPubKey expected_output{sp_tr_dests->begin()->second};\n+\n+ CTxIn txin{outpoint};\n+ const CPubKey sender_pubkey{sender_key.GetPubKey()};\n+ txin.scriptWitness.stack.emplace_back();\n+ txin.scriptWitness.stack.emplace_back(sender_pubkey.begin(), sender_pubkey.end());\n+\n+ std::map coins;\n+ coins[outpoint] = Coin{CTxOut{{}, GetScriptForDestination(WitnessV0KeyHash{sender_pubkey})}, 0, false};\n+ const auto prevouts_summary = bip352::GetSilentPaymentsPrevoutsSummary({txin}, coins);\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE(prevouts_summary.has_value());\n+\n+ std::vector output_pub_keys;\n+ output_pub_keys.emplace_back(ParseHex(\"ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff\"));\n+ output_pub_keys.push_back(expected_output);\n+\n+ std::unordered_map labels;\n+ const auto found_outputs = bip352::ScanForSilentPaymentsOutputs(scan_key, *prevouts_summary, spend_key.GetPubKey(), output_pub_keys, labels);\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE(found_outputs.has_value());\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE_EQUAL(found_outputs->size(), 1);\n+ BOOST_CHECK(found_outputs->front().output == expected_output);\n+}\n BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END()\n } // namespace wallet\n```" }, { "t": "2026-05-28T00:58:28Z", "kind": "review", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "state": "COMMENTED", "commit": "80d3a4853a9952b3781cce88d13232dc8bcea447", "text": "A few review comments:" }, { "t": "2026-05-29T11:05:15Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "43dc84da070a282e3ed90bceefe616baa4a6c4c5" }, { "t": "2026-05-29T11:07:17Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": 3307715746, "text": "I added a new struct, called `UnknownSilentPaymentsVersion`, to handle versions 1 to 30. I added some valid and invalid addresses with a version greater than zero." }, { "t": "2026-05-29T11:07:39Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "80d3a4853a9952b3781cce88d13232dc8bcea447", "in_reply_to": 3314444642, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-29T11:07:54Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": 3314642210, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-29T11:08:08Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "80d3a4853a9952b3781cce88d13232dc8bcea447", "in_reply_to": 3314706113, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-29T11:08:45Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": 3314571955, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-05-30T20:32:59Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in b0a0c54f5925c83728d0081f3009eb947b55895c: I think for this function, passing the label (pubkey) rather than the label tweak makes more sense, so the generator point multiplication (already done in `CreateLabelTweak` via the `secp256k1_silentpayments_label_create` API function) doesn't have to be repeated manually via `.GetPubKey()`. The label tweak only becomes relevant once a SP outputs need to be spent, but shouldn't be necessary in a function for address generation.\n```suggestion\n**\n * @brief Generate a silent payments labeled address.\n *\n * @param recipient The recipient's silent payments destination (i.e. scan and spend public keys).\n * @param label The label\n * @return V0SilentPaymentsDestination The silent payments destination, with `B_spend -> B_spend + label`.\n *\n * @see CreateLabelTweak(const CKey& scan_key, const int m);\n */\nV0SilentPaymentsDestination GenerateSilentPaymentsLabeledAddress(const V0SilentPaymentsDestination& recipient, const CPubKey& label);\n```" }, { "t": "2026-05-30T20:53:45Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b0a0c54f5925c83728d0081f3009eb947b55895c", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in b0a0c54f5925c83728d0081f3009eb947b55895c: nit: as it's returning more than only the tweak (I suspect in a past iteration it did only that though; that would explain why the tweak is passed to `GenerateSilentPaymentsLabeledAddress` below currently), could rename the function. Maybe `CreateLabelData` or simply `CreateLabel`?" }, { "t": "2026-05-30T21:04:38Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in b0a0c54f5925c83728d0081f3009eb947b55895c: could use directly `CPubKey` as the label cache map key type, since by using `CKeyID` additional hashing steps (via `.GetID()`, performing Hash160, i.e. SHA-256 + RIPEMD-160) are involved for every lookup, which I suspect would be slower. The only remaining gain would be a smaller size of the map in memory (20 bytes vs. 33 bytes keys), but I doubt that this would ever matter in practice." }, { "t": "2026-05-30T21:10:51Z", "kind": "review", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "state": "COMMENTED", "commit": "43dc84da070a282e3ed90bceefe616baa4a6c4c5", "text": "Looks good overall, left just some more findings regarding labels and the label cache. It might be worth it to introduce a dedicated \"serialized label\" type (e.g. `std::array`) and avoid using `CPubKey`, but this could still be done in a later follow-up PR." }, { "t": "2026-06-07T10:35:08Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6", "in_reply_to": 3329321393, "text": "`CPubKey` doesn't have a hash function for use with `std::unordered_map`. We'll have to check if it's better to use a `CPubKey + std::map` or `CKeyID + std::unordered_map`. The current plan is to eventually support at least 100_000 labels with the Bitcoin Core wallet; we can run a benchmark with this in mind." }, { "t": "2026-06-07T11:02:40Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6" }, { "t": "2026-06-07T11:03:02Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b0a0c54f5925c83728d0081f3009eb947b55895c", "in_reply_to": 3329308035, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-06-09T23:15:10Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6", "in_reply_to": 3329273356, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-06-22T08:49:03Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6", "in_reply_to": 3329321393, "text": "I created a benchmark to test this [here](https://github.com/Eunovo/bitcoin/blob/implement-bip352-bench/src/bench/bip352.cpp). After 3 runs, the ordered_map cache seems to perform slightly better most of the time:\n```\n\u279c 2025-implement-bip352-receiving git:(4cf3c054f7) build/bin/bench_bitcoin '-filter=BIP352ScanNoMatch.*'\n\n| ns/op | op/s | err% | total | benchmark\n|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------\n| 99,684.29 | 10,031.67 | 0.7% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchNoLabels`\n| 98,520.27 | 10,150.20 | 0.3% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith100kLabels`\n| 97,405.70 | 10,266.34 | 0.4% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith100kLabels_OrderedMap`\n| 101,070.67 | 9,894.07 | 0.5% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith1kLabels`\n| 100,686.00 | 9,931.87 | 0.4% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith1kLabels_OrderedMap`\n\u279c 2025-implement-bip352-receiving git:(4cf3c054f7) build/bin/bench_bitcoin '-filter=BIP352ScanNoMatch.*'\n\n| ns/op | op/s | err% | total | benchmark\n|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------\n| 101,105.09 | 9,890.70 | 0.7% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchNoLabels`\n| 102,756.00 | 9,731.79 | 1.6% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith100kLabels`\n| 100,361.90 | 9,963.94 | 0.6% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith100kLabels_OrderedMap`\n| 101,470.67 | 9,855.06 | 0.7% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith1kLabels`\n| 100,385.78 | 9,961.57 | 0.6% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith1kLabels_OrderedMap`\n\u279c 2025-implement-bip352-receiving git:(4cf3c054f7) build/bin/bench_bitcoin '-filter=BIP352ScanNoMatch.*'\n\n| ns/op | op/s | err% | total | benchmark\n|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------\n| 101,449.10 | 9,857.16 | 0.7% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchNoLabels`\n| 99,939.60 | 10,006.04 | 0.3% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith100kLabels`\n| 98,678.55 | 10,133.92 | 0.5% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith100kLabels_OrderedMap`\n| 101,501.11 | 9,852.11 | 0.5% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith1kLabels`\n| 99,560.60 | 10,044.13 | 0.2% | 0.01 | `BIP352ScanNoMatchWith1kLabels_OrderedMap`\n\n```\n\nSteps to Reproduce:\n- Clone https://github.com/Eunovo/bitcoin/tree/implement-bip352-bench\n- Build with `-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo -DBUILD_BENCH=ON`\n- Run `sudo pyperf system tune`\n- Run `build/bin/bench_bitcoin '-filter=BIP352ScanNoMatch.*' `" }, { "t": "2026-06-23T09:58:43Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "35be12454989519d128c3b1523a31938db061955" }, { "t": "2026-06-23T09:59:57Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "295ebcaeeb9f71f39c53623d33728975da8ec2e6", "in_reply_to": 3329321393, "text": "I have reverted back to using `std::map` as the labels cache" }, { "t": "2026-06-26T09:45:05Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "30f6396c7df7d4329e517f5f97dcafe29c68b4e8" }, { "t": "2026-07-01T17:01:00Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "At this line and in some other places above in the `GetPubKeyFromInput` function, passing in a transaction that is not consensus-valid could lead to a crash in theory. Assuming consensus-validity seems reasonable for the typical SP scanning scenario, but we probably should document it as precondition in the Doxygen header, for belts-and-suspenders? (Not sure if it's realistic, but I'm thinking of e.g. a potential future RPC that allows scanning for individual user-supplied transactions, where this could become an issue)." }, { "t": "2026-07-02T08:23:34Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5", "in_reply_to": 3507759403, "text": "[quoted text omitted]\n\nFunny you should mention this; I recently added this RPC in the sending PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35302/commits/ee27c74b26212bd883636793268fa27b2002ccf0" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T06:14:22Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e: nit: unused include, probably a leftover from an earlier version" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T06:17:28Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e: could assert here that version is in the range [1,30] (or throw if it isn't)" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T06:27:24Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.cpp", "commit": "a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e: could also ensure that both of the passed in public keys are compressed (with corresponding uncompressed keys we would still derive the correct output scripts when sending, but the SP address encoding would be overlong and invalid, AFAICT)." }, { "t": "2026-07-03T07:11:03Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "0ab06bda74011e39fa616edbfb7e81f365e8c74c", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5: could use `uint32_t` as type for m here (as implied by the spec and also used in the secp API)" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T07:18:19Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "90c2898fe2206a33e71d854a8f93e2f5709e0688", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5: here and in other doxygen headers in the same file: explicitly mentioning the return type is generally not necessary IMHO, as it's visible anyways two lines below" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T07:32:09Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5:\n```suggestion\n * destinations are passed in a map where the key indicates their desired position in the final tx.vout array.\n```" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T07:57:45Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "0bcb949e5d1ac72089dcef54fa5e56d4c8bf9c7c", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5: I wonder if this can be simplified by using a vector instead of a map for both the destinations and the created outputs? The relevant grouping (per shared scan key) happens already inside the secp module, there is nothing special about repeated destinations that warrants a map imho" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T08:04:25Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5", "in_reply_to": 3507759403, "text": "[quoted text omitted]\n\nAh funny indeed, I wasn't aware of this. I guess this RPC could currently crash triggered by malicious user input (e.g. with bogus scriptSig and a P2PKH previous output script), as it doesn't consensus-validate the tx before extracting pubkeys?" }, { "t": "2026-07-03T08:14:30Z", "kind": "review", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "state": "COMMENTED", "commit": "30f6396c7df7d4329e517f5f97dcafe29c68b4e8", "text": "Did another review round and left some more comments below, many of them being nitty (feel free to push back or ignore)." }, { "t": "2026-07-06T16:45:58Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "0ab06bda74011e39fa616edbfb7e81f365e8c74c" }, { "t": "2026-07-07T11:09:38Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5", "in_reply_to": 3507759403, "text": "[quoted text omitted]\n\nIt can. I have fixed the problem by removing the Asserts in `GetPubKeyFromInput` that could cause a crash with unexpected scripts." }, { "t": "2026-07-07T11:09:59Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e", "in_reply_to": 3517850379, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-07-07T11:10:22Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.cpp", "commit": "a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e", "in_reply_to": 3517896629, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-07-07T11:26:23Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "90c2898fe2206a33e71d854a8f93e2f5709e0688", "in_reply_to": 3518137458, "text": "I'll leave as-is since it's already specified." }, { "t": "2026-07-07T11:26:33Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "8de4f671236385b7ba9862ef02d21c775eb2a4a5", "in_reply_to": 3518209184, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-07-07T11:26:58Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "a4771f7651b97f28e29209b4a43794e073953d2e", "in_reply_to": 3517837482, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-07-07T12:05:40Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "36b553a1273b9fdbfeefc3108b387c6dc846ef81" }, { "t": "2026-07-07T12:06:00Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "0ab06bda74011e39fa616edbfb7e81f365e8c74c", "in_reply_to": 3518102498, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-07-07T13:45:01Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "0bcb949e5d1ac72089dcef54fa5e56d4c8bf9c7c", "in_reply_to": 3518344149, "text": "The map is not used for grouping outputs; it is used to store the original indicies of destinations so they can be replaced with the taproot scripts later, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35302/commits/676bb5e8be94303c1a67791bd5f16cd018023002#diff-6e06b309cd494ef5da4e78aa0929a980767edd12342137f268b9219167064d13R1504-R1524." }, { "t": "2026-07-23T20:13:14Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "sedited", "assoc": "MEMBER", "text": "@Eunovo ping for rebase :)" }, { "t": "2026-07-23T20:45:01Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "text": "[quoted text omitted]\n\nWill rebase soon." }, { "t": "2026-07-23T22:11:40Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "606c1f4b49bfa882c5dd8cd3abe55476aad4996b" }, { "t": "2026-07-24T10:51:18Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "90c2898fe2206a33e71d854a8f93e2f5709e0688" }, { "t": "2026-07-24T10:53:11Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "text": "Fixed the typos detected by Drahtbot" }, { "t": "2026-07-25T10:55:37Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479: nit: slightly simpler:\n```suggestion\n bool is_bech32 = is_silent_payment || (ToLower(str.substr(0, params.Bech32HRP().size())) == params.Bech32HRP());\n```" }, { "t": "2026-07-25T11:21:28Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/kernel/chainparams.h", "commit": "10240e6092f77fda9ef6ccb52b9c3f5a7f345373", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 10240e6092f77fda9ef6ccb52b9c3f5a7f345373: nit: for consistency, could also use the plural form here (related to the earlier comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35301#discussion_r3274544497)\n```suggestion\n std::string silent_payments_hrp;\n```" }, { "t": "2026-07-25T11:33:25Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/key_io_tests.cpp", "commit": "75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479: here and a few lines below: I wonder if we could use `BOOST_REQUIRE_MESSAGE` instead, as failing hard if something is wrong with the test vectors data (IIUC that's when the condition would be violated) seems reasonable? the if condition after could be removed then, simplifying the code" }, { "t": "2026-07-25T11:34:18Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479: yocto-nit: inclusive bounds are a tiny bit more readable imho\n```suggestion\n Assert(version >= 1 && version <= 30);\n```" }, { "t": "2026-07-25T11:47:18Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "d7f1998fa52bb63621daa60a04707d2b75ecbfe2", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in d7f1998fa52bb63621daa60a04707d2b75ecbfe2: nit: is the `std::optional` wrapping needed here for the scanning function (e.g. for a potential future error condition)? simply returning an empty std::vector in case no output is found or there are no (P2TR) outputs to scan for in the first place seems fine and simpler AFAICT." }, { "t": "2026-07-25T12:03:58Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "commit": "0bcb949e5d1ac72089dcef54fa5e56d4c8bf9c7c", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in 90c2898fe2206a33e71d854a8f93e2f5709e0688: should add a `BOOST_REQUIRE(sp != nullptr)` before dereferencing to avoid potential UB" }, { "t": "2026-07-25T12:07:23Z", "kind": "review", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "state": "COMMENTED", "commit": "90c2898fe2206a33e71d854a8f93e2f5709e0688", "text": "Left some nits below, planning to do a final review pass on the secp wrapper commit d7f1998fa52bb63621daa60a04707d2b75ecbfe2 soon." }, { "t": "2026-07-25T15:40:40Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "0bcb949e5d1ac72089dcef54fa5e56d4c8bf9c7c", "in_reply_to": 3518344149, "text": "Oh I see now, thinking that the map key for the destinations being a counter was a brain fart. As for using vectors instead of maps, I think this would still work if we only allow contiguous recipient indexes, see e.g. https://github.com/theStack/bitcoin/commit/7b4af2f4b589d134c99c85e7d6153f703eb2be60 (Not entirely sure if the index gaps are really needed, probably for wallet sending scenarios where SP outputs and regular outputs are mixed?)." }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:37:20Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "dde9ab61b53a60b55f722f2a16bcce33f95b7ba6" }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:42:59Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479", "in_reply_to": 3650060370, "text": "It is much better. Fixed." }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:43:33Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/key_io_tests.cpp", "commit": "75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479", "in_reply_to": 3650106137, "text": "The resulting code is much cleaner. Fixed!" }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:43:40Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/addresstype.h", "commit": "75950c7c4b9e802cd251b5f827b2eb76ad796479", "in_reply_to": 3650106883, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:43:50Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/kernel/chainparams.h", "commit": "10240e6092f77fda9ef6ccb52b9c3f5a7f345373", "in_reply_to": 3650095255, "text": "Fixed." }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:44:20Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "d7f1998fa52bb63621daa60a04707d2b75ecbfe2", "in_reply_to": 3650118341, "text": "I agree with you. I removed the `std::optional` wrapper." }, { "t": "2026-07-27T09:44:32Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "commit": "0bcb949e5d1ac72089dcef54fa5e56d4c8bf9c7c", "in_reply_to": 3650136002, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-07-30T09:27:41Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb: nit:\n```suggestion\n * @return std::optional The public key, or nullopt if not found.\n```\n(or alternatively, could also remove the return type from the doxygen comment)" }, { "t": "2026-07-30T09:41:39Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb:\n```suggestion\n * @return std::pair The label public key and label tweak.\n```\n(or as above, remove the type)" }, { "t": "2026-07-30T09:55:40Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b57cd63d760b96e645004970b38ae8c4e8de0692", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb: consistency nit:\nthe function's parameter names don't match the ones in the implementation (spend_pubkey vs. recipient_spend_pubkey, output_pub_keys vs. tx_outputs); i'd prefer the shorter ones, but no strong opinion" }, { "t": "2026-07-30T10:03:43Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb: nit: this line is not strictly needed I think" }, { "t": "2026-07-30T10:46:44Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in dee330e6adee94d5b2d19cc4214694c97af82b42: should set `error_str` here before returning a `CNoDestination`, to avoid triggering an \"Internal bug detected\" error in [`validateaddress`](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/9611a356035be531d62bfc40879f388d5dc359c4/src/rpc/output_script.cpp#L64). looking at what happens when the same error condition hits for regular (non-SP) bech32(m) addresses [below](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/9611a356035be531d62bfc40879f388d5dc359c4/src/key_io.cpp#L200-L203), \"Invalid padding in Silent payments address (Bech32m data section)\" might be a possible error string." }, { "t": "2026-07-30T10:48:53Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "theStack", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "dee330e6adee94d5b2d19cc4214694c97af82b42", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "in dee330e6adee94d5b2d19cc4214694c97af82b42: nit: as there are no format args, there is no need for `strprintf`\n```suggestion\n error_str = \"Invalid Silent payments address\";\n```" }, { "t": "2026-08-10T16:13:39Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "b57cd63d760b96e645004970b38ae8c4e8de0692" }, { "t": "2026-08-10T16:15:22Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb", "in_reply_to": 3681564973, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-08-10T16:15:34Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb", "in_reply_to": 3681659591, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-08-10T16:18:58Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "b8cb20ae596feada95331257fcf280cd26bb2ffb", "in_reply_to": 3681798381, "text": "Removed." }, { "t": "2026-08-10T16:19:34Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "dee330e6adee94d5b2d19cc4214694c97af82b42", "in_reply_to": 3682066045, "text": "Removed." }, { "t": "2026-08-10T17:19:01Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "ed66407d72697ee4e00b1ae62f5a6a06d60729f0" }, { "t": "2026-08-10T17:19:56Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/key_io.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": 3682053708, "text": "Done." }, { "t": "2026-08-10T17:20:09Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.h", "commit": "b57cd63d760b96e645004970b38ae8c4e8de0692", "in_reply_to": 3681748298, "text": "Fixed." }, { "t": "2026-08-10T17:22:07Z", "kind": "comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "text": "Sorry for the late reply @theStack . I resolved your comments and fixed a few extra nits I noticed. I also added a new functional test to rpc_validateaddress.py\n\nYou can review with `git range-diff master..dde9ab6 master..ed66407`" }, { "t": "2026-08-11T11:55:35Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "Eunovo", "assoc": "MEMBER", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "0bcb949e5d1ac72089dcef54fa5e56d4c8bf9c7c", "in_reply_to": 3518344149, "text": "[quoted text omitted]\n\nYes. We preserve the original indexes in a Map because the vector of recipients can contain both SP and non-SP destinations, and the SP destinations are not required to be contiguous." }, { "t": "2026-08-11T13:43:14Z", "kind": "force_push", "who": "Eunovo", "commit": "4e7ac8f3e451bb3ee38c5ff8701b39c13ecc6de4" }, { "t": "2026-08-11T19:35:26Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "`CreateOutputs` can return an empty output vector when both input-key sets are empty, before calling secp.\n`GenerateSilentPaymentsTaprootDestinations` converts this to `std::nullopt` without the guard, `secp`\u2019s illegal-argument callback can abort the process.\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/common/bip352.cpp b/src/common/bip352.cpp\nindex 2fe80869c8..c0e6b7e774 100644\n--- a/src/common/bip352.cpp\n+++ b/src/common/bip352.cpp\n@@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ std::vector CreateOutputs(\n const std::vector& taproot_keypairs,\n const COutPoint& smallest_outpoint\n ) {\n+ if (plain_keys.empty() && taproot_keypairs.empty()) return {};\n+\n bool ret;\n std::vector taproot_keypair_ptrs;\n std::vector plain_key_ptrs;\ndiff --git a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\nindex c365540d66..487e30b2cd 100644\n--- a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n@@ -227,6 +227,19 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_preserves_requested_output_indexes)\n BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(generated->count(5), 1);\n }\n\n+BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_sender_rejects_empty_input_key_set)\n+{\n+ CKey scan_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002\");\n+ CKey spend_key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003\");\n+ V0SilentPaymentsDestination sp_dest{scan_key.GetPubKey(), spend_key.GetPubKey()};\n+ std::map sp_dests{{0, sp_dest}};\n+ COutPoint smallest_outpoint{Txid::FromHex(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\").value(), 0};\n+\n+ const auto generated = bip352::GenerateSilentPaymentsTaprootDestinations(sp_dests, {}, {}, smallest_outpoint);\n+\n+ BOOST_CHECK(!generated.has_value());\n+}\n+\n BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_skips_transactions_spending_unknown_segwit_versions)\n {\n CKey key = ParseHexToCKey(\"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\");\n\n```" }, { "t": "2026-08-11T19:52:19Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/test/bip352_tests.cpp", "commit": "4e7ac8f3e451bb3ee38c5ff8701b39c13ecc6de4", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "The receive-vector test currently checks only the matched output public key. Maybe it could check priv_key_tweak too?\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\nindex c365540d66..e16a4c1f28 100644\n--- a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n@@ -193,15 +193,18 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(bip352_send_and_receive_test_vectors)\n if (!expected[\"n_outputs\"].isNull()) {\n BOOST_CHECK(found_outputs.size() == (size_t)expected[\"n_outputs\"].getInt());\n } else {\n- std::vector expected_outputs;\n+ std::map expected_outputs;\n for (const auto& output : expected[\"outputs\"].getValues()) {\n- std::string pubkey_hex = output[\"pub_key\"].get_str();\n- expected_outputs.emplace_back(ParseHex(pubkey_hex));\n+ expected_outputs.emplace(\n+ XOnlyPubKey{ParseHex(output[\"pub_key\"].get_str())},\n+ uint256{ParseHex(output[\"priv_key_tweak\"].get_str())});\n }\n BOOST_TEST_MESSAGE(found_outputs.size());\n- BOOST_CHECK(found_outputs.size() == expected_outputs.size());\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE_EQUAL(found_outputs.size(), expected_outputs.size());\n for (const auto& output : found_outputs) {\n- BOOST_CHECK(std::find(expected_outputs.begin(), expected_outputs.end(), output.output) != expected_outputs.end());\n+ const auto expected_output = expected_outputs.find(output.output);\n+ BOOST_REQUIRE(expected_output != expected_outputs.end());\n+ BOOST_CHECK(output.tweak == expected_output->second);\n }\n }\n }\n```" }, { "t": "2026-08-11T20:04:11Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/test/key_io_tests.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "The `!isSilentPayments` condition skips all parsing checks for the new vectors. Maybe let them run through the same branch and special-case only `IsValidDestination` ?\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp b/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp\nindex e365c2bd53..7609274848 100644\n--- a/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp\n@@ -54,10 +54,14 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(key_io_valid_parse)\n // Private key must be invalid public key\n destination = DecodeDestination(exp_base58string);\n BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(!IsValidDestination(destination), \"IsValid privkey as pubkey:\" + strTest);\n- } else if (!isSilentPayments) { // TODO remove if condition when silent payments sending is implemented\n- // Must be a valid destination\n+ } else {\n+ // Must decode to the expected destination\n destination = DecodeDestination(exp_base58string);\n- BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(IsValidDestination(destination), \"!IsValid:\" + strTest);\n+ if (isSilentPayments) { // TODO remove special case when silent payments sending is implemented\n+ BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(!IsValidDestination(destination), \"IsValid silent payments destination:\" + strTest);\n+ } else {\n+ BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(IsValidDestination(destination), \"!IsValid:\" + strTest);\n+ }\n\n // Payload check depends on address type\n if (isSilentPayments && silentPaymentsVersion == 0) {\n@@ -74,6 +78,7 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(key_io_valid_parse)\n }\n\n // Try flipped case version\n+ const CTxDestination expected_destination{destination};\n for (char& c : exp_base58string) {\n if (c >= 'a' && c <= 'z') {\n c = (c - 'a') + 'A';\n@@ -82,7 +87,11 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(key_io_valid_parse)\n }\n }\n destination = DecodeDestination(exp_base58string);\n- BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(IsValidDestination(destination) == try_case_flip, \"!IsValid case flipped:\" + strTest);\n+ if (isSilentPayments) {\n+ BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE((destination == expected_destination) == try_case_flip, \"case flipped mismatch:\" + strTest);\n+ } else {\n+ BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(IsValidDestination(destination) == try_case_flip, \"!IsValid case flipped:\" + strTest);\n+ }\n if (!isSilentPayments && IsValidDestination(destination)) {\n CScript script = GetScriptForDestination(destination);\n BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(HexStr(script), HexStr(exp_payload));\n```" }, { "t": "2026-08-11T20:24:16Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/test/key_io_tests.cpp", "commit": "a97b2202584f2a7628a277ea15192925e518888e", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "`IsValidDestination` currently returns false even for a successfully decoded silent-payment destination.\n\nRequiring `CNoDestination` directly verifies that the malformed string was actually rejected.\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp b/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp\nindex e365c2bd53..d521498de8 100644\n--- a/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/key_io_tests.cpp\n@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(key_io_invalid)\n for (const auto& chain : {ChainType::MAIN, ChainType::TESTNET, ChainType::SIGNET, ChainType::REGTEST}) {\n SelectParams(chain);\n destination = DecodeDestination(exp_base58string);\n- BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(!IsValidDestination(destination), \"IsValid pubkey in mainnet:\" + strTest);\n+ BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(std::holds_alternative(destination), \"Decoded invalid destination:\" + strTest);\n privkey = DecodeSecret(exp_base58string);\n BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE(!privkey.IsValid(), \"IsValid privkey in mainnet:\" + strTest);\n }\n```" }, { "t": "2026-08-11T20:32:24Z", "kind": "review_comment", "who": "w0xlt", "assoc": "CONTRIBUTOR", "path": "src/common/bip352.cpp", "commit": "542475dce0fbaef13871cbb11b5b11992389633f", "in_reply_to": null, "text": "This will likely fix the CI error.\n\n```diff\ndiff --git a/src/common/bip352.h b/src/common/bip352.h\nindex d3a266b999..98fecc3e0c 100644\n--- a/src/common/bip352.h\n+++ b/src/common/bip352.h\n@@ -6,7 +6,6 @@\n #define BITCOIN_COMMON_BIP352_H\n\n #include \n-#include \n #include \n #include \n #include \n@@ -26,12 +25,14 @@ struct secp256k1_silentpayments_prevouts_summary;\n class CKey;\n class CScript;\n class KeyPair;\n+class Coin;\n\n namespace bip352 {\n\n using PubKey = std::variant;\n\n class PrevoutsSummaryImpl;\n+\n class PrevoutsSummary\n {\n private:\ndiff --git a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\nindex c365540d66..2822889d23 100644\n--- a/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n+++ b/src/test/bip352_tests.cpp\n@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@\n #include \n #include \n #include \n+#include \n #include \n #include