Skip to content

fix!: use the same version along all protx special transactions#7302

Draft
knst wants to merge 4 commits intodashpay:developfrom
knst:fix-providertx-versions
Draft

fix!: use the same version along all protx special transactions#7302
knst wants to merge 4 commits intodashpay:developfrom
knst:fix-providertx-versions

Conversation

@knst
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@knst knst commented Apr 30, 2026

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Until now, CProRegTx and CProUpServTx were the only ProTx subtypes that could carry a higher version (v3, ext-addresses). That is acceptable on the assumption no new features or versions would ever be introduced for ProTx special transactions.

What was done?

For better forward-compatibility, uniform documentation, and less user confusion, after v24 CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx are also allowed to use the "ext-addresses" version, even though they don't carry any network-related fields at the moment.

From now on:

  • version 1: legacy BLS, extended addresses disallowed (pre v19 fork)
  • version 2: basic BLS, extended addresses disallowed (since v19 fork)
  • version 3: basic BLS, extended addresses allowed (since v24 fork)

NOTE: CSimplifiedMNListEntry and CDeterministicMNState also use the same enum for its version; moreover CDeterministicMNState inherits version directly from CProRegTx. This refactoring doesn't contradict or conflict
this behavior.

It also simplifies the implementation, drops the dependency of evo/providertx.h on validation.h and reduces the number of circular dependencies over evo/providertx.
The regression test now goes through the same GetValidatedPayload helper that consensus uses, instead of calling GetTxPayload + IsTriviallyValid directly.

How Has This Been Tested?

Run unit / functional tests.

Breaking Changes

After v24, CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx may now be serialized at version 3, which they were previously not eligible for. The bad-protx-version-tx-type consensus check is removed accordingly so these txes are accepted at version 3.

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

@knst knst added this to the 24 milestone Apr 30, 2026
@thepastaclaw
Copy link
Copy Markdown

thepastaclaw commented Apr 30, 2026

✅ Review complete (commit f94f7cc)

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions Bot commented Apr 30, 2026

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ed4d9c63ea

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread src/rpc/evo.cpp
Comment on lines +1139 to +1140
ptx.nVersion = DeploymentToProtxVersion(WITH_LOCK(::cs_main, return chainman.ActiveChain().Tip()), chainman,
/*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy);
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Badge Clamp update_registrar version for legacy masternodes

When DEPLOYMENT_V24 is active, this assignment makes protx update_registrar default to version 3, but legacy masternodes (dmn->pdmnState->nVersion == LegacyBLS) are still required by IsVersionChangeValid in src/evo/specialtxman.cpp to move to version 2 before any higher version. As a result, the RPC now constructs transactions that fail with bad-protx-version-upgrade for legacy nodes, which breaks the legacy→basic upgrade path (and related registrar updates) via the standard RPC. update_service and revoke already avoid this with a BasicBLS clamp, so update_registrar is now inconsistent and regresses behavior introduced by this commit.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 30, 2026

Walkthrough

ProTx version handling was centralized: the ProTxVersion enum and GetMax moved to evo/types.h, and a new DeploymentToProtxVersion(pindexPrev, chainman, optional override) was added to validation. Provider-tx validators (CProRegTx/CProUpServTx/CProUpRegTx/CProUpRevTx) had their IsTriviallyValid APIs simplified to take only TxValidationState&, and callers (specialtxman, RPC helpers, tests) now obtain allowed ProTx version via DeploymentToProtxVersion and enforce it before trivial validation. Several header includes were adjusted to reduce circular dependencies.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant RPC_Handler
    participant Chainstate as ChainstateManager
    participant Validation as validation.cpp
    participant SpecialTxMan
    participant ProTx as ProTx::IsTriviallyValid

    Client->>RPC_Handler: protx_register / update / revoke request
    RPC_Handler->>Chainstate: get chain tip (pindexPrev)
    RPC_Handler->>Validation: DeploymentToProtxVersion(pindexPrev, Chainstate, optional override)
    Validation-->>RPC_Handler: max_allowed_version
    RPC_Handler->>SpecialTxMan: construct tx with nVersion = max_allowed_version
    SpecialTxMan->>Validation: DeploymentToProtxVersion(pindexPrev, Chainstate)
    Validation-->>SpecialTxMan: max_allowed_version
    SpecialTxMan->>ProTx: opt_ptx->IsTriviallyValid(state)
    ProTx-->>SpecialTxMan: valid / reject (state with reason)
    SpecialTxMan-->>RPC_Handler: validated payload / error
    RPC_Handler-->>Client: result
Loading

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 12.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: unifying versioning across all protx special transactions by allowing CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx to use the same version enum.
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Description check ✅ Passed The pull request description clearly explains the issue being fixed (forward-compatibility for ProTx versions), the implementation (allowing CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx to use version 3), and the breaking changes.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@knst knst marked this pull request as draft April 30, 2026 20:56
knst added 4 commits May 2, 2026 02:39
…dation

This commit replaces usage of helpers GetPayload+IsTrivialValid to GetValidatedPayload
It unifies validation between regression tests and production code and
useful for the next commits in PR
CProRegTx and CProUpServTx used to be the only type of protx that have
a different version. It is theoretically acceptable in assumption that
there is no new features or version will ever be introduced for protx
special transaction.

Though, for better compatibility for futher version, unification, simplicity
of documentation and to reduce user's confusions for after-v24 version
of CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx are allowed to be "ext addresses" even they
don't have any network related fields _at the moment_

So, since now:
 - version 1: legacy BLS, extended addresses disallowed (pre v19 fork)
 - version 2: basic BLS, extended addresses disallowed (since v19 fork)
 - version 3: basic BLS, extended addresses allowed (since v24 fork)

NOTE: there are also classes CSimplifiedMNListEntry and CDeterministicMNState
use the same enum for its version; moreover CDeterministicMNState inherits
version directly from CProRegTx. This refactoring doesn't contradict or conflict
this behavior
It helps to drop multiple circular dependencies for providertx <-> validation.h as a side effect
@knst knst force-pushed the fix-providertx-versions branch from ed4d9c6 to f94f7cc Compare May 1, 2026 19:46
@knst knst marked this pull request as ready for review May 2, 2026 01:29
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/evo/providertx.h (1)

95-99: ⚡ Quick win

GetValidatedPayload<T> is not full validation.

These comments overstate the helper’s contract. As implemented in src/evo/specialtxman.cpp, GetValidatedPayload only covers payload decoding, deployment-gated version bounds, and IsTriviallyValid(...); callers still need CheckPro*Tx for collateral, masternode-list, signature, input-hash, and version-transition checks. Please reword this so future call sites don’t treat the helper as sufficient consensus validation.

Also applies to: 160-164, 211-215, 265-269

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@src/evo/providertx.h` around lines 95 - 99, The comment for IsTriviallyValid
overstresses GetValidatedPayload<T> — update the wording to clearly state that
GetValidatedPayload<T> only performs payload decoding, deployment-gated version
bounds checks and calls IsTriviallyValid, and that callers must still run full
consensus checks (e.g., CheckProRegTx / CheckProUpServTx or other CheckPro*Tx
functions) to validate collateral, masternode-list state, signatures, input-hash
and version-transition rules; change the docstring near IsTriviallyValid and the
similar comments at the other three locations to explicitly list those remaining
checks and not present GetValidatedPayload<T> as full validation.
src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp (1)

61-64: ⚡ Quick win

Add a post-v24 fixture path here.

This runner still collapses the matrix to "legacy" vs "basic", so none of the new version-3 behavior introduced in this PR gets exercised. Please add an "extaddr"/post-v24 branch and vectors for at least CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp` around lines 61 - 64, The test currently
only selects between "basic" and "legacy" via test[2].get_str() when setting
pindexPrev, so post-v24/extaddr vectors aren't exercised; update the selection
logic (replace the two-way ternary around pindexPrev or add an if/else/switch)
to handle a third value "extaddr" and pick an appropriate CBlockIndex from
chainman.ActiveChain() for the post-v24 path, and add corresponding test vectors
for CProUpRegTx and CProUpRevTx in the test matrix so the "extaddr" branch is
executed during the trivial validation runner.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@src/evo/specialtxman.h`:
- Around line 101-103: The template function GetValidatedPayload is defined in a
.cpp which will cause linker errors because the tests instantiate it for
concrete types; fix by either moving the full template definition into the
header where it's declared (so the compiler can instantiate for CProRegTx,
CProUpServTx, CProUpRegTx, CProUpRevTx) or, if you keep the definition in
specialtxman.cpp, add explicit template instantiations for
GetValidatedPayload<CProRegTx>, GetValidatedPayload<CProUpServTx>,
GetValidatedPayload<CProUpRegTx>, and GetValidatedPayload<CProUpRevTx> in that
.cpp so the linker sees the generated symbols.

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@src/evo/providertx.h`:
- Around line 95-99: The comment for IsTriviallyValid overstresses
GetValidatedPayload<T> — update the wording to clearly state that
GetValidatedPayload<T> only performs payload decoding, deployment-gated version
bounds checks and calls IsTriviallyValid, and that callers must still run full
consensus checks (e.g., CheckProRegTx / CheckProUpServTx or other CheckPro*Tx
functions) to validate collateral, masternode-list state, signatures, input-hash
and version-transition rules; change the docstring near IsTriviallyValid and the
similar comments at the other three locations to explicitly list those remaining
checks and not present GetValidatedPayload<T> as full validation.

In `@src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp`:
- Around line 61-64: The test currently only selects between "basic" and
"legacy" via test[2].get_str() when setting pindexPrev, so post-v24/extaddr
vectors aren't exercised; update the selection logic (replace the two-way
ternary around pindexPrev or add an if/else/switch) to handle a third value
"extaddr" and pick an appropriate CBlockIndex from chainman.ActiveChain() for
the post-v24 path, and add corresponding test vectors for CProUpRegTx and
CProUpRevTx in the test matrix so the "extaddr" branch is executed during the
trivial validation runner.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

  • Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
  • Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: e2a718c8-ebeb-4c10-8f6b-eedbc74713c3

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ed4d9c6 and f94f7cc.

📒 Files selected for processing (17)
  • src/evo/deterministicmns.h
  • src/evo/dmnstate.h
  • src/evo/netinfo.cpp
  • src/evo/providertx.cpp
  • src/evo/providertx.h
  • src/evo/simplifiedmns.h
  • src/evo/smldiff.h
  • src/evo/specialtxman.cpp
  • src/evo/specialtxman.h
  • src/evo/types.h
  • src/llmq/commitment.cpp
  • src/rpc/evo.cpp
  • src/test/data/trivially_invalid.json
  • src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp
  • src/validation.cpp
  • src/validation.h
  • test/lint/lint-circular-dependencies.py
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
  • src/evo/dmnstate.h
  • src/evo/smldiff.h
  • src/evo/deterministicmns.h
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
  • src/llmq/commitment.cpp
  • src/evo/types.h
  • src/test/data/trivially_invalid.json
  • test/lint/lint-circular-dependencies.py
  • src/evo/simplifiedmns.h
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
  • src/evo/netinfo.cpp
  • src/validation.cpp
  • src/validation.h
  • src/evo/specialtxman.cpp
  • src/evo/providertx.cpp

Comment thread src/evo/specialtxman.h
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@thepastaclaw thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

The refactor is sound but introduces a regression in the non-legacy protx update_registrar RPC: after V24 activates, it produces a v3 ProUpRegTx that consensus rejects when the masternode is still in LegacyBLS state, and also trips a CHECK_NONFATAL when the caller reuses the existing legacy operator key. Sibling RPCs (update_service, revoke) have the correct BasicBLS clamp and update_registrar should match. Test coverage for the newly-permitted v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx path is also missing.

Reviewed commit: f94f7cc

🔴 1 blocking | 🟡 1 suggestion(s)

1 additional finding

🟡 suggestion: No regression coverage for the newly-permitted v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx path

src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp (lines 60-64)

This PR removes the bad-protx-version-tx-type consensus check that previously rejected CProUpRegTx/CProUpRevTx at version 3, and routes the test harness through the same GetValidatedPayload path consensus uses. However, the harness still only accepts "basic" and "legacy" vectors and leaves a TODO for extended addresses, so none of the new acceptance rules are actually exercised at a post-V24 height. Adding a v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx vector validated against a post-V24 pindexPrev would lock in the new contract and protect against accidental re-introduction of the dropped check.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
These findings are from an automated code review. Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `src/rpc/evo.cpp`:
- [BLOCKING] lines 1139-1140: `protx update_registrar` produces an invalid v3 payload for legacy-state masternodes after V24
  After V24 activates, `DeploymentToProtxVersion(tip, chainman, /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy)` returns `ProTxVersion::ExtAddr` (3) for the non-legacy path. Previously, `GetMaxFromDeployment<CProUpRegTx>` capped this at `BasicBLS` (2) for registrar updates. Two consequences:

1. If the underlying masternode is still at state version `LegacyBLS` (1), `IsVersionChangeValid` (specialtxman.cpp:907-909) rejects the v3 jump with `bad-protx-version-upgrade`. There is no longer a working non-legacy RPC path to migrate a legacy masternode via `update_registrar`.

2. If the caller leaves the operator key unchanged, `ptx.pubKeyOperator` is reused from `dmn->pdmnState`, which is legacy. The `CHECK_NONFATAL(ptx.pubKeyOperator.IsLegacy() == (ptx.nVersion == ProTxVersion::LegacyBLS))` at line 1159 then trips (true == false).

The sibling wrappers `protx update_service` (1014-1018) and `protx revoke` (1268-1272) already clamp to BasicBLS in this case. `update_registrar` needs the same clamp. Real-world impact is limited because V24 is `NEVER_ACTIVE` on mainnet/testnet, but the regression is real and silently breaks devnet/regtest setups.

In `src/test/evo_trivialvalidation.cpp`:
- [SUGGESTION] lines 60-64: No regression coverage for the newly-permitted v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx path
  This PR removes the `bad-protx-version-tx-type` consensus check that previously rejected `CProUpRegTx`/`CProUpRevTx` at version 3, and routes the test harness through the same `GetValidatedPayload` path consensus uses. However, the harness still only accepts `"basic"` and `"legacy"` vectors and leaves a TODO for extended addresses, so none of the new acceptance rules are actually exercised at a post-V24 height. Adding a v3 ProUpRegTx/ProUpRevTx vector validated against a post-V24 `pindexPrev` would lock in the new contract and protect against accidental re-introduction of the dropped check.

Comment thread src/rpc/evo.cpp
Comment on lines +1139 to +1140
ptx.nVersion = DeploymentToProtxVersion(WITH_LOCK(::cs_main, return chainman.ActiveChain().Tip()), chainman,
/*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy);
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🔴 Blocking: protx update_registrar produces an invalid v3 payload for legacy-state masternodes after V24

After V24 activates, DeploymentToProtxVersion(tip, chainman, /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy) returns ProTxVersion::ExtAddr (3) for the non-legacy path. Previously, GetMaxFromDeployment<CProUpRegTx> capped this at BasicBLS (2) for registrar updates. Two consequences:

  1. If the underlying masternode is still at state version LegacyBLS (1), IsVersionChangeValid (specialtxman.cpp:907-909) rejects the v3 jump with bad-protx-version-upgrade. There is no longer a working non-legacy RPC path to migrate a legacy masternode via update_registrar.

  2. If the caller leaves the operator key unchanged, ptx.pubKeyOperator is reused from dmn->pdmnState, which is legacy. The CHECK_NONFATAL(ptx.pubKeyOperator.IsLegacy() == (ptx.nVersion == ProTxVersion::LegacyBLS)) at line 1159 then trips (true == false).

The sibling wrappers protx update_service (1014-1018) and protx revoke (1268-1272) already clamp to BasicBLS in this case. update_registrar needs the same clamp. Real-world impact is limited because V24 is NEVER_ACTIVE on mainnet/testnet, but the regression is real and silently breaks devnet/regtest setups.

source: ['claude', 'codex']

🤖 Fix this with AI agents
These findings are from an automated code review. Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `src/rpc/evo.cpp`:
- [BLOCKING] lines 1139-1140: `protx update_registrar` produces an invalid v3 payload for legacy-state masternodes after V24
  After V24 activates, `DeploymentToProtxVersion(tip, chainman, /*is_basic_override=*/!use_legacy)` returns `ProTxVersion::ExtAddr` (3) for the non-legacy path. Previously, `GetMaxFromDeployment<CProUpRegTx>` capped this at `BasicBLS` (2) for registrar updates. Two consequences:

1. If the underlying masternode is still at state version `LegacyBLS` (1), `IsVersionChangeValid` (specialtxman.cpp:907-909) rejects the v3 jump with `bad-protx-version-upgrade`. There is no longer a working non-legacy RPC path to migrate a legacy masternode via `update_registrar`.

2. If the caller leaves the operator key unchanged, `ptx.pubKeyOperator` is reused from `dmn->pdmnState`, which is legacy. The `CHECK_NONFATAL(ptx.pubKeyOperator.IsLegacy() == (ptx.nVersion == ProTxVersion::LegacyBLS))` at line 1159 then trips (true == false).

The sibling wrappers `protx update_service` (1014-1018) and `protx revoke` (1268-1272) already clamp to BasicBLS in this case. `update_registrar` needs the same clamp. Real-world impact is limited because V24 is `NEVER_ACTIVE` on mainnet/testnet, but the regression is real and silently breaks devnet/regtest setups.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@kwvg kwvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Concept NACK


From commit d86d571

CProRegTx and CProUpServTx used to be the only type of protx that have
a different version. It is theoretically acceptable in assumption that
there is no new features or version will ever be introduced for protx
special transaction.

The versioning system made an assumption that any change in ProTx structures will affect all fields uniformly, leaving certain fields v2 and others v3 allows us to prevent unexpected upgrades based on changes to fields that were never modified and thus prevents the propagation of serialisation directives based on fields never changed.

Even if the RPC sets the version we intend, removing a way to distinguish what txType is allowed to set the version at the consensus level means a patch in RPC could allow corruption of the masternode list as it'll see a v3 transaction, assume v3 serialization and then on client restart, cannot recognise the bytes on disk as it's v2 bytes but v3 version.

A theoretical v4 would follow the same pattern, set the version where the fields could be updated (always at creation OR for existing nodes, when the relevant ProTx is submitted) and then version-solve accordingly. The current system doesn't block that.

Let's assume that revocation is now at v4, future rules could force that you first upgrade to v3 by submitting a new ProUpRegTx (explicit user action that submits the new ser format) to then use v4 ProUpRevTx (to avoid getting a v2 to v4 not allowed error).

Comment thread src/evo/specialtxman.cpp
return state.Invalid(TxValidationResult::TX_CONSENSUS, "bad-protx-version-upgrade");
}

if (tx_type != TRANSACTION_PROVIDER_UPDATE_SERVICE && tx_version == ProTxVersion::ExtAddr) {
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The reason we have version transition rules is to prevent the node from being classed as ExtAddr without actually opting in to it at creation or by explicitly updating the service.

Especially since once the version is upgraded the serialisation format changes. By classifying all transactions ExtAddr, a revoke transaction could indicate that the node intends to follow ExtAddr serialization when that was a) not the user's intention and b) will cause serialization mismatches which are very dependent on the version (see below)

NetInfoSerWrapper(const_cast<std::shared_ptr<NetInfoInterface>&>(obj.netInfo),
obj.nVersion >= ProTxVersion::ExtAddr),

Comment thread src/evo/specialtxman.h


/**
* This helper does some trivial validations that doesn't depends on collateral and
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These changes are valuable but must be decoupled from changes in consensus behavior

Comment thread src/validation.h
/** Get highest permissible ProTx version based on deployment status
* Note: The override is needed because some RPCs need to use deployment status information for everything *except*
* the BLS version upgrade since they are specializations for a specific BLS version. This is a one-off.
* TODO: Resolve this oddity. Consider deprecating legacy BLS-only RPCs so we can remove them eventually.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
* TODO: Resolve this oddity. Consider deprecating legacy BLS-only RPCs so we can remove them eventually.

We can probably drop this TODO since the legacy RPCs won't be going anywhere even after deprecation due to hard requirements in functional tests, we already have network rules to enforce the deprecation at a consensus level but the RPCs themselves remain indispensible.

@knst
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

knst commented May 3, 2026

assume v3 serialization and then on client restart, cannot recognise the bytes on disk as it's v2 bytes but v3 version.

No, they would not, because:

NOTE: CSimplifiedMNListEntry and CDeterministicMNState also use the same enum for its version; moreover CDeterministicMNState inherits version directly from CProRegTx. This refactoring doesn't contradict or conflict

@kwvg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

kwvg commented May 3, 2026

NOTE: CSimplifiedMNListEntry and CDeterministicMNState also use the same enum for its version; moreover CDeterministicMNState inherits version directly from CProRegTx. This refactoring doesn't contradict or conflict

The issue isn't the new node creation path, it's the upgrade path, say

  • A node that started off as LegacyBLS had v1 for its ProRegTx, having v1 serialization
  • Upgraded to v2 using ProUpRegTx meaning now the internal state assumes v2 serialization
  • For v3, they're supposed to update it using ProUpServTx to activate extended address v3 serialization

But without at a minimum restricting the upgrade path, a specially crafted transaction could update the expected serialization to v3 with a ProUpRevTx (despite holding no service data but now allowed to mark itself as v3) and then on restart, when reading the masternode list and encountering a v3, find the v2 bytes unrecognizable and emit an error.

@knst knst marked this pull request as draft May 3, 2026 17:16
@knst
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

knst commented May 3, 2026

NOTE: CSimplifiedMNListEntry and CDeterministicMNState also use the same enum for its version; moreover CDeterministicMNState inherits version directly from CProRegTx. This refactoring doesn't contradict or conflict

The issue isn't the new node creation path, it's the upgrade path, say

@knst knst marked this pull request as draft now

I will write some extra tests; PR is draft temporary

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants