* validate sapling v5 tx
* Make itertools dependency optional
We only need itertools when the `proptest-impl` feature is enabled.
* Check if V4 and V5 coinbase transactions contain PrevOut transparent inputs
This is a bugfix on V4 transaction validation. The PrevOut consensus
rule was not explicitly stated in the Zcash spec until April 2021.
(But it was implied by Bitcoin, and partially implemented by Zebra.)
Also do the shielded sapling input check for V5 transactions.
* Add spec and orchard TODOs to has_inputs_and_outputs
Also make the variable names match the spec.
* Sort transaction functions to match v5 data order
* Simplify transaction input and output checks
Move counts or iterators into `Transaction` methods, so we can remove
duplicate code, and make the consensus rule logic clearer.
* Update sapling_balances_match for Transaction v5
- Quote from the spec
- Explain why the function is redunant for v5
- Rename the function so it's clear that it is sapling-specific
Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net>
* start refactoring transaction v4 for transaction v5
- move ShieldedData to sapling
- add AnchorVariant
- rename shielded_data to sapling_shielded data in V4
- move value_balance into ShieldedData
- update prop tests for new structure
* add AnchorVariant to Spend
- make anchor types available from sapling crate
- update serialize
* change shielded_balances_match() arguments
* change variable name anchor to shared_anchor in ShieldedData
* fix empty value balance serialization
* use AnchorV in shielded spends
* Rename anchor to per_spend_anchor
* Use nullifiers function directly in non-finalized state
* Use self.value_balance instead of passing it as an argument
* Add missing fields to ShieldedData PartialEq
* Derive Copy for tag types
* Add doc comments for ShieldedData refactor
* Implement a per-spend anchor compatibility iterator
Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net>
* Ed25519 async batch verification for JoinSplit signatures
We've been verifying JoinSplitSigs one-by-one pre-ZIP-215. Now as we're post-ZIP-215,
we can take advantage of the batch math to validate this signatures.
I would have pumped all the joinsplits in our MAINNET_BLOCKS test vectors but these
signatures are over the sighash, which needs the NU code to compute, and once we're
doing all that set up, we're basically doing transaction validation, so.
Resolves#1944
* Repoint to latest ed25519-zebra commit with note to point at 3.0 when released
Co-authored-by: Alfredo Garcia <oxarbitrage@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net>
* add transaction V5 stub
* add v5_strategy
* deduplicate version group ids
* Update comment for V5 transactions
* Add V5 transactions to non_finalized_state
Currently these are all `unimplemented!(...)`
* Fix struct matches
* Apply trivial panic message changes
* add zcash_deserialize for V5
* make all tx versions explicit in sprout and sapling nullifier functions
* match exhaustively in sprout and sapling nullifier functions
* fix matches in zebra-consensus
* fix NU5 strategy
* We're still deciding if v5 transactions support Sprout
Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net>
This consensus rule is supposed to apply to transactions whose
transparent inputs are the *outputs* of previous coinbase
transactions, not to transactions with coinbase inputs. Because that
logic is different enough from this logic, and requires different data
flow, it's cleaner to just remove this check for now.
Making this check's match statement exhaustive revealed a bug similar to
the previous commit. The logic in the spec is written in terms of
numbers, but our data is internally represented in terms of enums
(ADTs). This kind of cross-representation rule translation is a bug
surface, which we can avoid by converting to counts and summing up. (We
should use one style at a time).
This function caused spurious "WrongVersion" errors, because the match
pattern in the first arm was non-exhaustive, but the fallthrough match
arm was present and assumed it would only be reached if the version was
incorrect.
This commit cleans up the implemenation, splits out the error variants,
and renames the check to be more precise.
To avoid this kind of bug in the future, two guidelines are useful:
1. Avoid fallthrough cases that circumvent non-exhaustive match checks;
2. Avoid nested conditionals, preferring a "straight-line" sequence of
match arm => result pairs rather than nested matches or matches with
conditionals inside.
Alfredo Garcia
Deirdre Connolly
Deirdre Connolly
teor
Henry de Valence