rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc #30886

instagibbs · 2024-09-12T17:39:36Z

Resolves #30873

The typical use-case would be when you have a too low-fee(perhaps presigned) or timelocked parent transaction where you want to sign the child transaction before broadcasting anything.

You could imagine the parent transaction being a LN commitment transaction at 0 fee, and the child transaction being an anchor spend. Due to the below mempool minimum of the parent, the parent and child transaction must be sent as a pair via submitpackage, so the parent isn't available in the mempool or utxo set yet.

DrahtBot · 2024-09-12T17:39:40Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/30886.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	rkrux
Concept ACK	1440000bytes, BrandonOdiwuor
Stale ACK	pablomartin4btc

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#32514 (scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs by maflcko)
#31622 (psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking by achow101)
#29675 (wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys by achow101)
#21283 (Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2 by achow101)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

pablomartin4btc

ACK abc835282a66495f65f342cfc113e45aac4ebb48

Was this functionality already exposed somewhere I missed?

I couldn't find anything but perhaps I missed some.

Should "non-witness utxos" always be the type added when updating the PSBT? Looks like we fill in non-witness wherever we can, and witness whenever scraping from utxo set

You mean that segwit txs would need to be converted into legacy ones to be passed in prev_txs?

I've checked the test and I understand the use case, but could you please expand a bit on the reasons why prev txs "can not be entered into the mempool or UTXO set", if possible?

instagibbs · 2024-09-16T13:21:18Z

@pablomartin4btc I expanded on the use-case a bit in the OP

For (2) I was asking what was typically done for non_witness_utxo vs witness_utxo. Due to pre-taproot weaknesses in sighash format I think it's typical to add the full transaction when possible in this codebase at least, and I conform to that in this PR.

BrandonOdiwuor

Concept ACK

rkrux

tACK abc8352

Successful make and functional tests.
I manually tested the new argument in utxoupdatepsbt using my regtest environment by creating parent transaction and a subsequent child transaction. Processing the child PSBT without passing in the raw parent transaction hex led to incomplete processing and was successful later when the parent was passed.
Also tested for duplicate parent transaction error.

src/rpc/rawtransaction.cpp

test/functional/rpc_psbt.py

DrahtBot · 2024-10-21T16:25:43Z

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed.
_{Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/31832620127}

Hints

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still
happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
affected test.
An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

This feature is useful when construction a series of presigned transactions that can not be entered into the mempool or UTXO set before signing everything.

rkrux

tACK 87ceb61

Rebuilt and reran functional tests.

rkrux · 2024-10-22T03:27:07Z

src/rpc/util.cpp

    return ret;
 }

+std::vector<CTransactionRef> ParseTransactionVector(const UniValue txns_param)


Thanks, this pure function implementation is nice!

rkrux · 2024-10-22T07:39:17Z

This is far easier to use compared to the earlier way of signrawtransactionwithwallet where few details need to be passed manually such as txid, vout, scriptPubKey, witnessScript, amount!

➜  bcli28 signrawtransactionwithwallet 0300000001f70daae6a5f540e7ff0216e443f6422200f13c2d3c57fa10ab0cff3f1f2abf3f0000000000fdffffff0120e20f2401000000160014e2370a8c1504f239194d158eb0b1450c932b56a900000000 "[{\"txid\":\"3fbf2a1f3fff0cab10fa573c2d3cf1002242f643e41602ffe740f5a5e6aa0df7\", \"vout\": 0, \"scriptPubKey\": \"0014e2370a8c1504f239194d158eb0b1450c932b56a9\", \"witnessScript\": \"035d276773f6e233b41aba595b63e1fa31c3c21b68ca58c4383bb658a3ead4d296\", \"amount\": 48.99989}]"
{
  "hex": "03000000000101f70daae6a5f540e7ff0216e443f6422200f13c2d3c57fa10ab0cff3f1f2abf3f0000000000fdffffff0120e20f2401000000160014e2370a8c1504f239194d158eb0b1450c932b56a9024730440220562a76cf2d701f61bd34a7e741523b1925dfa96b303df94ae7d25c45e186ac3f02207e420ee8a9b9c792b3c67bad8d108c0fc4f0a8d8605f66d61282115a63982d8c0121037dd7593d1344e3b8a13b95ab8cc320ee93466f2b558d2869a6d03361b251d65800000000",
  "complete": true
}

This feature is useful when construction a series of presigned transactions that can not be entered into the mempool or UTXO set before signing everything. Github-Pull: bitcoin#30886 Rebased-From: 87ceb61

instagibbs · 2025-04-08T20:48:29Z

I'm not sure this has proper amount of user demand, putting into draft in case someone stumbles on it and says otherwise

DrahtBot · 2025-05-17T09:43:46Z

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

achow101 · 2025-10-22T14:27:54Z

Closing this as it has not had any activity in a while. If you are interested in continuing work on this, please leave a comment so that it can be reopened.

DrahtBot added the RPC/REST/ZMQ label Sep 12, 2024

instagibbs force-pushed the 2024-09-updateutxo_psbt branch from 527301e to abc8352 Compare September 12, 2024 18:59

DrahtBot added CI failed and removed CI failed labels Sep 12, 2024

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Sep 13, 2024

Implement BIP 370 PSBTv2 #21283

Open

pablomartin4btc reviewed Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

Prabhat1308 mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2024

Review Club : PSBT input utxo population Bitshala/BitcoinCore-PR-Review-Club#84

Closed

This comment was marked as abuse.

Sign in to view

DrahtBot added the CI failed label Oct 11, 2024

BrandonOdiwuor reviewed Oct 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot removed the CI failed label Oct 13, 2024

rkrux approved these changes Oct 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/rpc/rawtransaction.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/rpc/rawtransaction.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/rpc/rawtransaction.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_psbt.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

DrahtBot requested a review from BrandonOdiwuor October 20, 2024 10:11

instagibbs force-pushed the 2024-09-updateutxo_psbt branch from abc8352 to b6f701d Compare October 21, 2024 14:30

DrahtBot added the CI failed label Oct 21, 2024

instagibbs force-pushed the 2024-09-updateutxo_psbt branch from b6f701d to b1ec4d5 Compare October 21, 2024 17:43

rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc

87ceb61

This feature is useful when construction a series of presigned transactions that can not be entered into the mempool or UTXO set before signing everything.

instagibbs force-pushed the 2024-09-updateutxo_psbt branch from b1ec4d5 to 87ceb61 Compare October 21, 2024 18:48

DrahtBot removed the CI failed label Oct 21, 2024

rkrux approved these changes Oct 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot requested a review from pablomartin4btc October 22, 2024 03:33

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2025

psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking #31622

Merged

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Jan 22, 2025

wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys #29675

Merged

instagibbs marked this pull request as draft April 8, 2025 20:47

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request May 15, 2025

scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs #32514

Merged

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label May 17, 2025

achow101 closed this Oct 22, 2025

rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc #30886

rpc: Add support to populate PSBT input utxos via rpc #30886

Uh oh!

Conversation

instagibbs commented Sep 12, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Sep 12, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews

Conflicts

Uh oh!

pablomartin4btc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

instagibbs commented Sep 16, 2024

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as abuse.

BrandonOdiwuor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rkrux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Oct 21, 2024

Uh oh!

rkrux left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rkrux Oct 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rkrux commented Oct 22, 2024

Uh oh!

instagibbs commented Apr 8, 2025

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented May 17, 2025

Uh oh!

achow101 commented Oct 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

instagibbs commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading