WIP: Reject double-spends of shielded nullifiers and UTXOs #2420
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
teor2345
added
C-design
teor2345
force-pushed
the
reject-nullifier-double-spends
branch
from
273165f to
d7f33dc
Compare
teor2345
commented
Jun 30, 2021
teor2345
commented
Jun 30, 2021
teor2345
commented
Jun 30, 2021
|
The macOS failure is unrelated, it looks like #2163. Most of the first ~30 peers we tried failed, and took up the entire timeout. That will get better when each initial handshake is in its own task. |
jvff
suggested changes
Jun 30, 2021
teor2345
commented
Jun 30, 2021
dconnolly
reviewed
Jun 30, 2021
dconnolly
reviewed
Jun 30, 2021
teor2345
commented
Jun 30, 2021
dconnolly
reviewed
Jun 30, 2021
teor2345
changed the title
|
This PR got a lot more complicated than I expected. The code works, but the check is in the wrong place in the finalized state. I need to move the check to the non-finalized state, and probably split the UTXO and nullifier changes. |
teor2345
force-pushed
the
reject-nullifier-double-spends
branch
from
8639df5 to
815268a
Compare
1 task
teor2345
force-pushed
the
reject-nullifier-double-spends
branch
4 times, most recently
from
09c3180 to
c7ee621
Compare
teor2345
force-pushed
the
reject-nullifier-double-spends
branch
from
c7ee621 to
f46b030
Compare
3 tasks
We need to keep the order of UTXOs when we're verifying a single block, but the block order is irrelevant for UTXOs stored in the state.
Reject transparent output double-spends - Check that transparent spends use outputs from earlier in their block Document how duplicate nullifiers are rejected by the finalized state. Tests for duplicate sprout nullifiers at different levels Nullifiers can be duplicated within the same JoinSplit, transaction, block, or chain. And disable a failing test.
teor2345
force-pushed
the
reject-nullifier-double-spends
branch
from
f46b030 to
950d6ef
Compare
|
I'm going to open a PR that obsoletes this PR some time over the next day or two. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Zebra needs to check the double-spend consensus rule for shielded spends in the finalized state.
Specifications
See #2231
Designs
The state RFC is updated by this PR:
https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/blob/main/book/src/dev/rfcs/0005-state-updates.md#rocksdb-data-structures
Solution
Closes #2231.
Before adding a block to a non-finalized chain:
Testing
I've started a cached state test for commit be39530 here:
https://github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/actions/runs/985595375
Review
@jvff can do the initial review on this PR.
It's somewhat urgent, because the design and code changes will conflict with the new column families for anchors, history, and value pools.
Reviewer Checklist