backport: Merge bitcoin#28587, 28056, 27905 by vijaydasmp · Pull Request #7356 · dashpay/dash

vijaydasmp · 2026-06-11T03:33:44Z

Bitcoin back ports

github-actions · 2026-06-11T03:34:23Z

⚠️ Potential Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR has potential conflicts with the following open PRs:

backport: bitcoin#18933, #23123, #23147, #23549, #26074, #26207, #26307, #26341, #26352, #26656, #26886, #26996, #27035 #7192 - backport: bitcoin#18933, #23123, #23147, #23549, #26074, #26207, #26307, #26341, #26352, #26656, #26886, #26996, #27035

Please coordinate with the authors of these PRs to avoid merge conflicts.

c1e6c54 descriptors: disallow hybrid public keys (Pieter Wuille) Pull request description: Fixes bitcoin#28511 The descriptor documentation (`doc/descriptors.md`) and [BIP380](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0380.mediawiki) explicitly require that hex-encoded public keys start with 02 or 03 (compressed) or 04 (uncompressed). However, the current parsing/inference code permit 06 and 07 (hybrid) encoding as well. Fix this. ACKs for top commit: darosior: ACK c1e6c54 achow101: ACK c1e6c54 Tree-SHA512: 23b674fb420619b2536d12da10008bb87cf7bc0333ec59e618c0d02c3574b468cc71248475ece37f76658d743ef51e68566948e903bca79fda5f7d75416fea4d

…o `template_request` f6a2619 Added `longpollid` and `data` params to `template_request` bitcoin#27998 (Rhythm Garg) Pull request description: This PR will add the optional parameters `longpollid` and `data` to `template_request` as they were missing when calling `help getblocktemplate` in RPCHelpMan. I request the maintainers to review this and let me know about any mistakes in the descriptions of the parameters. This PR refers to the issue bitcoin#27998 ACKs for top commit: ItIsOHM: > tACK [f6a2619](bitcoin@f6a2619) russeree: tACK bitcoin@f6a2619 stickies-v: tACK f6a2619 Tree-SHA512: 6c592db59cb11b2d031ce5265c547fa296266278f6c25f96afe18a420e0d547f4d483e0f66de75d52c0c319ac1585f3558b9f70c12ef208c96ec96a51f786c6a

…ndex e639364 validation: add missing insert to m_dirty_blockindex (Martin Zumsande) Pull request description: When the status of a block index is changed, we must add it to `m_dirty_blockindex` or the change might not get persisted to disk. This is missing from one spot in `FindMostWorkChain()`, where `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` is set. Since we have [code](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/f0758d8a6696657269d9c057e7aa079ffa9e1c16/src/node/blockstorage.cpp#L284-L287) that later sets missing `BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD` during the next startup, I don't think that this can lead to bad block indexes in practice, but I still think it's worth fixing. ACKs for top commit: TheCharlatan: ACK e639364 stickies-v: ACK e639364 Tree-SHA512: a97af9c173e31b90b677a1f95de822e08078d78013de5fa5fe4c3bec06f45d6e1823b7694cdacb887d031329e4b4afc6a2003916e0ae131279dee71f43e1f478

thepastaclaw · 2026-06-14T19:03:04Z

✅ Review complete (commit 7e8d383)

coderabbitai · 2026-06-14T19:06:08Z

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 10e8eb39-70ab-4f93-aeaf-ade56b38aaf6

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7fcc54a and 7e8d383.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

src/pubkey.h
src/rpc/mining.cpp
src/script/descriptor.cpp
src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp
src/validation.cpp

Walkthrough

The PR makes three independent changes. First, CPubKey gains a new IsValidNonHybrid() const noexcept method that returns true only when the key's header byte is 0x02, 0x03, or 0x04, excluding hybrid keys (0x06/0x07). This method is then wired into descriptor.cpp: ParsePubkeyInner uses it to reject hybrid hex pubkeys with an explicit error, and InferScript switches its TxoutType::PUBKEY acceptance check from IsValid() to IsValidNonHybrid(). Three new CheckUnparsable test cases cover combo, pk, and pkh descriptors with hybrid key payloads. Separately, FindMostWorkChain in validation.cpp now inserts affected CBlockIndex* entries into m_blockman.m_dirty_blockindex when marking them BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD or BLOCK_CONFLICT_CHAINLOCK, closing a missing dirty-tracking gap. A minor getblocktemplate RPC help text update adds longpollid and data parameter descriptions.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Suggested reviewers

PastaPastaPasta
thepastaclaw
knst
UdjinM6

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 50.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	The description 'Bitcoin back ports' is extremely vague and generic, conveying minimal information about what changes are being made or why they matter.	Expand the description to briefly outline the three main changes: descriptor validation updates, RPC documentation additions, and block validation fixes.

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies this as a backport of three specific Bitcoin Core commits (28587, 28056, 27905), which matches the actual changeset that implements three distinct improvements across multiple files.
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.

_{✏️ 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.}

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Three-PR backport (bitcoin#28587, bitcoin#28056, bitcoin#27905) from Bitcoin Core. All agents converged that the merge resolutions and Dash-specific adaptations are correct, including the extension of dirty-blockindex insertion to Dash's BLOCK_CONFLICT_CHAINLOCK branch. Codex's two backport-prereq suggestions are informational notes that the dedicated backport-reviewer specialist already considered and classified as correct Dash adaptations rather than missing prerequisites, so they are dropped per the review skill's backport guidance.

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Re-reviewed the Bitcoin Core backport chain for prerequisite completeness. bitcoin#28587 is not prerequisite-complete on Dash: upstream modifies Miniscript descriptor key parsing added by bitcoin#24148, but Dash does not have that prerequisite, so this backport is too early rather than merely Dash-adapted. bitcoin#28056 and bitcoin#27905 still look clean/adapted, but bitcoin#28587 should not land before the missing descriptor prerequisite chain is resolved.

🔴 1 blocking

🤖 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/script/descriptor.cpp`:
- [BLOCKING] src/script/descriptor.cpp:872-875: Backport bitcoin#24148 before bitcoin#28587
  bitcoin#28587 modifies three descriptor parsing paths upstream: direct hex pubkey parsing, descriptor inference, and the Miniscript descriptor `KeyParser` path. This backport only applies the first two because Dash does not yet have `struct KeyParser` / Miniscript descriptor support in `src/script/descriptor.cpp`, which was introduced upstream by bitcoin#24148. That absence is a missing prerequisite, not a Dash-specific adaptation: upstream's pre-#28587 state already contained the parser and its descriptor tests, and #28587 changes it from `pubkey.IsValid()` to `pubkey.IsValidNonHybrid()` while adding corresponding `wsh(...)`/Miniscript coverage in `src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp`. Please backport the prerequisite descriptor/Miniscript chain first, or drop bitcoin#28587 from this PR until that chain is present.

thepastaclaw · 2026-06-15T12:13:13Z

+            if (pubkey.IsValid() && !pubkey.IsValidNonHybrid()) {
+                error = "Hybrid public keys are not allowed";
+                return nullptr;
+            }


🔴 Blocking: Backport bitcoin#24148 before bitcoin#28587

bitcoin#28587 modifies three descriptor parsing paths upstream: direct hex pubkey parsing, descriptor inference, and the Miniscript descriptor KeyParser path. This backport only applies the first two because Dash does not yet have struct KeyParser / Miniscript descriptor support in src/script/descriptor.cpp, which was introduced upstream by bitcoin#24148. That absence is a missing prerequisite, not a Dash-specific adaptation: upstream's pre-bitcoin#28587 state already contained the parser and its descriptor tests, and bitcoin#28587 changes it from pubkey.IsValid() to pubkey.IsValidNonHybrid() while adding corresponding wsh(...)/Miniscript coverage in src/test/descriptor_tests.cpp. Please backport the prerequisite descriptor/Miniscript chain first, or drop bitcoin#28587 from this PR until that chain is present.

_{source: ['codex']}

Resolved in this update — Backport bitcoin#24148 before bitcoin#28587 no longer present.

_{Auto-resolved by the review system based on the latest commit diff. If you believe this was closed in error, reopen the thread.}

thepastaclaw

Code Review

Re-run through the automated review pipeline with the new backport-prerequisite policy gate applied. The verifier originally dropped the codex backport-prereq finding, but the deterministic policy gate restored it and converted the review to REQUEST_CHANGES because this PR advertises a full backport of bitcoin#28587 while omitting an upstream hunk that depends on bitcoin#24148.

bitcoin#28056 and bitcoin#27905 still look clean/adapted. bitcoin#28587 should not land before the missing descriptor/Miniscript prerequisite chain is resolved, or it should be dropped from this PR until that chain is present.

🔴 1 blocking

thepastaclaw · 2026-06-15T12:38:51Z

    if (txntype == TxoutType::PUBKEY) {
        CPubKey pubkey(data[0]);
-        if (pubkey.IsValid()) {
+        if (pubkey.IsValidNonHybrid()) {
            return std::make_unique<PKDescriptor>(InferPubkey(pubkey, ctx, provider));


🔴 Blocking: Missing prerequisite: bitcoin#24148

bitcoin#28587 changes all descriptor public-key inference/parsing paths from accepting CPubKey::IsValid() to rejecting hybrid encodings via IsValidNonHybrid(). Upstream also changes the Miniscript descriptor KeyParser::FromPKBytes path (CPubKey pubkey(begin, end); if (pubkey.IsValidNonHybrid()) ...). Dash's starting state has no KeyParser or Miniscript descriptor tests, so the local cherry-pick only applies the non-Miniscript ParsePubkeyInner and InferScript parts.

Tracing the missing struct KeyParser section with git log bitcoin/master -S "struct KeyParser" -- src/script/descriptor.cpp points to 85b601e043 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24148: Miniscript support in Output Descriptors. Because this PR claims to backport bitcoin#28587 as a whole, the omitted upstream hunk is a missing prerequisite rather than a harmless Dash adaptation. Please backport the prerequisite descriptor/Miniscript chain first, or drop bitcoin#28587 from this PR until that chain is present.

_{source: ['codex-backport-reviewer'], promoted to blocking by backport-prereq policy gate}

vijaydasmp force-pushed the June_2026_2 branch 3 times, most recently from eb78da1 to d833080 Compare June 14, 2026 03:56

fanquake added 2 commits June 14, 2026 23:01

vijaydasmp force-pushed the June_2026_2 branch from d833080 to 7e8d383 Compare June 14, 2026 17:31

vijaydasmp changed the title ~~backport: Merge bitcoin#28587, 25634, 28056, 27866, 27905,~~ backport: Merge bitcoin#28587, 28056, 27905 Jun 14, 2026

vijaydasmp marked this pull request as ready for review June 14, 2026 19:02

thepastaclaw approved these changes Jun 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

thepastaclaw suggested changes Jun 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

backport: Merge bitcoin#28587, 28056, 27905#7356

backport: Merge bitcoin#28587, 28056, 27905#7356
vijaydasmp wants to merge 3 commits into
dashpay:developfrom
vijaydasmp:June_2026_2

vijaydasmp commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw commented Jun 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 14, 2026

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw Jun 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

vijaydasmp commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

⚠️ Potential Merge Conflicts Detected

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw commented Jun 14, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 14, 2026

Walkthrough

Estimated code review effort

Suggested reviewers

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw Jun 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw Jun 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

thepastaclaw Jun 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

github-actions Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

thepastaclaw commented Jun 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

thepastaclaw left a comment •

edited

Loading

thepastaclaw Jun 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading