8000 chain: Make sure we validate taproot by Davidson-Souza · Pull Request #418 · vinteumorg/Floresta · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

chain: Make sure we validate taproot #418

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of 8000 service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

chain: Make sure we validate taproot #418

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Davidson-Souza
Copy link
Collaborator

What is the purpose of this pull request?

  • Bug fix
  • Documentation update
  • New feature
  • Test
  • Other:

Which crates are being modified?

  • floresta-chain
  • floresta-cli
  • floresta-common
  • floresta-compact-filters
  • floresta-electrum
  • floresta-watch-only
  • floresta-wire
  • floresta
  • florestad
  • Other: .

Description

This commit passes flags to validate taproot, uses the correct API on bitcoinconsensus and adds some tests for taproot transactions.

Checklist

  • I've signed all my commits
  • I ran just lint
  • I ran cargo test
  • I've checked the integration tests
  • I've followed the contribution guidelines
  • I'm linking the issue being fixed by this PR (if any)

@Davidson-Souza
chain: Make sure we validate taproot
3aa7c0e 
This commit passes flags to validate taproot, uses the correct API on
bitcoinconsensus and adds some tests for taproot transactions.
@Davidson-Souza Davidson-Souza added chore Cleaning, refactoring, reducing complexity consensus This changes something inside our consensus implementation labels Apr 17, 2025
@Davidson-Souza Davidson-Souza mentioned this pull request Apr 22, 2025
Draft
21 tasks
@JoseSK999
Copy link
Contributor

Should this be closed as it's replaced by #456?

@Davidson-Souza
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@JoseSK999

Should this be closed as it's replaced by #456?

I've left this open because #456 can't be merged right now. This is the approach with libbitcoinconsensus, I though about leaving both open for comparison. At least for now

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
chore Cleaning, refactoring, reducing complexity consensus This changes something inside our consensus implementation
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@Davidson-Souza @JoseSK999
0