backport: assumeutxo M5 — loadtxoutset end-to-end (restacked on decomposed M4) by PastaPastaPasta · Pull Request #54 · PastaPastaPasta/dash

PastaPastaPasta · 2026-07-12T13:45:59Z

M5 preview — loadtxoutset end-to-end, restacked on the decomposed M4 series

This fork PR mirrors the restacked M5 milestone (2026-08-20): the 25 M5 commits (bitcoin#27596 assumeutxo (2), the bitcoin#28562–bitcoin#28838 follow-up/test cluster, loadtxoutset/getchainstates, and the Dash adaptations) replayed onto the finished decomposed M4 head (#53 = dashpay#7592 + dashpay#7593 + dashpay#7601, post-dashpay#7603 develop), plus five reconciliation commits to fold into their logical parents when the upstream M5 PR is cut:

AssumeUTXO follow-ups bitcoin/bitcoin#28562 work-check message ported to the retained validation.cpp copy of PopulateAndValidateSnapshot (the evo/snapshot_load.cpp copy it patched no longer exists)
node.indexes registration uses the post-refactor: move address/spent/timestamp indexes into NodeContext dashpay/dash#7547 NodeContext index members instead of the removed globals
the activation-time background MN-list capture is gated on the base block's BLOCK_VALID_SCRIPTS status instead of the transient background tip (upstream's test helper rewinds the tip around activation)
a missing snapshot base header is nonfatal at startup (supersedes the M3 hard error + test; snapshot_startup_missing_base_header_is_nonfatal covers the replacement)
the tampered-evo E2E case tampers latelyUnlocked (a currentLimit flip is now rejected by context-free credit-pool validation before the hash check; that rejection kept as its own case)

Verified at this head: full build, complete unit suite, feature_assumeutxo.py, feature_assumeutxo_dash.py, wallet_assumeutxo.py, rpc_dumptxoutset.py.

Review happens upstream; this preview exists so M6 (#55) has a base once the M4 series merges.

coderabbitai · 2026-07-12T13:46:06Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 3a94399b-b295-4798-925e-fdd4c1b12737

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Commit unit tests in branch assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset

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.}

5d227a6 rpc: Use Ensure(Any)Chainman in assumeutxo related RPCs (Fabian Jahr) 710e5db doc: Drop references to assumevalid in assumeutxo docs (Fabian Jahr) 1ff1c34 test: Rename wait_until_helper to wait_until_helper_internal (Fabian Jahr) a482f86 chain: Rename HaveTxsDownloaded to HaveNumChainTxs (Fabian Jahr) 82e48d2 blockstorage: Let FlushChainstateBlockFile return true in case of missing cursor (Fabian Jahr) 73700fb validation, test: Improve and document nChainTx check for testability (Fabian Jahr) 2c9354f doc: Add snapshot chainstate removal warning to reindexing documentation (Fabian Jahr) 4e915e9 test: Improvements of feature_assumeutxo (Fabian Jahr) a47fbe7 doc: Add and edit some comments around assumeutxo (Fabian Jahr) 0a39b8c validation: remove unused mempool param in DetectSnapshotChainstate (Fabian Jahr) Pull request description: Addressing what I consider to be non- or not-too-controversial comments from bitcoin#27596. Let me know if I missed anything among the many comments that can be easily included here. ACKs for top commit: ryanofsky: Code review ACK 5d227a6. Just suggested doc change and new EnsureChainman RPC cleanup commit since last review. Tree-SHA512: 6f7c762100e18f82946b881676db23e67da7dc3a8bf04e4999a183e90b4f150a0b1202bcb95920ba937a358867bbf2eca300bd84b9b1776c7c490410e707c267

7e40032 tests: assumeutxo: accept final height from either chainstate (James O'Beirne) 5bd2010 test: assumeutxo: avoid race in functional test (James O'Beirne) 7005a01 test: add wait_for_connect to BitcoinTestFramework.connect_nodes (James O'Beirne) Pull request description: Fixes bitcoin#28585. Fixes a few races within the assumeutxo tests: - In general, `-stopatheight` can't be used with `connect_nodes` safely because the latter performs blocking assertions that are racy with the stopatheight triggering. - Now that the snapshot chainstate is listed as `normal` after background validation, accept the final height from either chainstate. ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: lgtm ACK 7e40032 fjahr: Code review ACK 7e40032 achow101: ACK 7e40032 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 7e40032 Tree-SHA512: 8cbd2a0ca8643f94baa0ae3561dcf68c3519d5ba851c6049e1768f28cae6434f47ffc28d404bf38ed11030ce3f00aae0a8be3f6d563e6ae6680d83c928a173d8

…a list of chainstates a9ef702 assumeutxo: change getchainstates RPC to return a list of chainstates (Ryan Ofsky) Pull request description: Current `getchainstates` RPC returns "normal" and "snapshot" fields which are not ideal because it requires new "normal" and "snapshot" terms to be defined, and the definitions are not really consistent with internal code. (In the RPC interface, the "snapshot" chainstate becomes the "normal" chainstate after it is validated, while in internal code there is no "normal chainstate" and the "snapshot chainstate" is still called that temporarily after it is validated). The current `getchainstates` RPC is also awkward to use if you to want information about the most-work chainstate, because you have to look at the "snapshot" field if it exists, and otherwise fall back to the "normal" field. Fix these issues by having `getchainstates` just return a flat list of chainstates ordered by work, and adding a new chainstate "validated" field alongside the existing "snapshot_blockhash" field so it is explicit if a chainstate was originally loaded from a snapshot, and whether the snapshot has been validated. This change was motivated by comment thread in bitcoin#28562 (comment) ACKs for top commit: Sjors: re-ACK a9ef702 jamesob: re-ACK a9ef702 achow101: ACK a9ef702 Tree-SHA512: b364e2e96675fb7beaaee60c4dff4b69e6bc2d8a30dea1ba094265633d1cddf9dbf1c5ce20c07d6e23222cf1e92a195acf6227e4901f3962e81a1e53a43490aa

03f8208 doc: assumeutxo prune and index notes (Sjors Provoost) Pull request description: Based on recent comments on bitcoin#27596. ACKs for top commit: pablomartin4btc: re ACK 03f8208 ryanofsky: ACK 03f8208. Nice changes, these seem like very helpful notes Tree-SHA512: fe651b49f4d667400a3655899f27a96dd1eaf67cf9215fb35db5f44fb8c0313e7d541518be6791fec93392df24b909793f3886adb808e53228ed2a291165639d

…ssumeUTXO parameters fails 2e31250 test: check that loading snapshot not matching AssumeUTXO parameters fails (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: This PR adds test coverage for the failed loading of an AssumeUTXO snapshot in case the referenced block hash doesn't match the parameters in the chainparams. Right now, I expect this would be the most common error-case for `loadtxoutset` out in the wild, as for mainnet the `m_assumeutxo_data` map is empty and this error condition would obviously always be triggered for any (otherwise valid, correctly encoded) snapshot. Note that this test-case is the simplest scenario and doesn't cover any of the TODO ideas mentioned at the top of the functional test yet. ACKs for top commit: jamesob: ACK bitcoin@2e31250 Sjors: utACK 2e31250 achow101: ACK 2e31250 Tree-SHA512: 8bcb2d525c95fbc95f87d3e978ad717d95bddb1ff67cbe7d3b06e4783f0f1ffba32b17ef451468c39c23bc1b3ef1150baa71148c145275c386f2d4822d790d39

fa68571 test: Add assumeutxo test for wrong hash (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: Also: * Update test TODOs * Fix off-by-4 typo in test, remove `struct` import ACKs for top commit: fjahr: utACK fa68571 theStack: Code-review re-ACK fa68571 pablomartin4btc: re ACK fa68571 ryanofsky: Code review ACK fa68571 Tree-SHA512: 877653010efe4e20018827e8ec2801d036e1344457401f0c9e5d55907b817724201dd2e3f0f29505bbff619882c0c2cd731ecdcd209258bcefe11b86ff0205dd

…esn't match AssumeUTXO parameters 9620cb4 assumeutxo: fail early if snapshot block hash doesn't match AssumeUTXO parameters (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: Right now the `loadtxoutset` RPC call treats literally all files with a minimum size of 40 bytes (=size of metadata) as potential valid snapshot candidates and the waiting loop for seeing the metadata block hash in the headers chain is always entered, e.g.: ``` $ ./src/bitcoin-cli loadtxoutset ~/.vimrc <wait> bitcoind log: ... 2023-10-15T14:55:45Z [snapshot] waiting to see blockheader 626174207465730a7265626d756e207465730a656c62616e65207861746e7973 in headers chain before snapshot activation ... ``` There is no point in doing any further action though if we already know from the start that the UTXO snapshot loading won't be successful. This PR adds an assumeutxo parameter check immediately after the metadata is read in, so we can fail immediately on a mismatch: ``` $ ./src/bitcoin-cli loadtxoutset ~/.vimrc error code: -32603 error message: Unable to load UTXO snapshot, assumeutxo block hash in snapshot metadata not recognized (626174207465730a7265626d756e207465730a656c62616e 65207861746e7973) ``` This way, users who mistakenly try to load files that are not snapshots don't have to wait 10 minutes (=the block header waiting timeout) anymore to get a negative response. If a file is loaded which is a valid snapshot (referencing to an existing block hash), but one which doesn't match the parameters, the feedback is also faster, as we don't have to wait anymore to see the hash in the headers chain before getting an error. This is also partially fixes bitcoin#28621. ACKs for top commit: maflcko: lgtm ACK 9620cb4 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 9620cb4. This should fix an annoyance and bad UX. pablomartin4btc: tACK 9620cb4 Tree-SHA512: f88b865e9d46254858e57c024463f389cd9d8760a7cb30c190aa1723a931e159987dfc2263a733825d700fa612e7416691e4d8aab64058f1aeb0a7fa9233ac9c

621db2f test: assumeutxo file with unknown block hash (Fabian Jahr) Pull request description: Takes care of one of the open Todos in the assumeutxo functional test. Since an unknown block could be any hash, I simply chose one placeholder, it could also be a random string though. ACKs for top commit: maflcko: lgtm ACK 621db2f pablomartin4btc: cr ACK 621db2f theStack: ACK 621db2f ryanofsky: Code review ACK 621db2f Tree-SHA512: ee0438ce619f7348c6f88e39b0ea7ddddb8832956d9034ecc795c6033d5d905c09d11b7d0d5afc38231b2fd091ea7c1bd0a0be99d9c32c4e6357a25d76294142

… index + de-duplications d322368 test: De-dublicate/optimize assumeutxo test for further extensions (Fabian Jahr) 0a576d6 test: check au file with changed outpoint index (Fabian Jahr) Pull request description: Also doing some de-duplications. I kept the second commit separate for now as I am not 100% if this is overdoing it and makes it harder to reason about. But it also makes it easier to add more cases where we change more data. ACKs for top commit: maflcko: lgtm ACK d322368 achow101: ACK d322368 Tree-SHA512: be950a34b0ed50cb58459df47cff6513df19d834bf81815572cd26b10dee26e6f80866f0c44023cf246aafbbd256e62d23ce903e8b07fdff2297bc7065799bb8

…ulation Regenerate Dash regtest AssumeutxoData commitments after switching to the corrected per-coin hash_serialized_3 serialization. Procedure: build the post-change dashd/test_dash; run validation_chainstatemanager_tests snapshot activation cases for heights 110 and 200; run feature_assumeutxo.py to dump the deterministic height-299 snapshot; run rpc_dumptxoutset.py and feature_utxo_set_hash.py to refresh their deterministic golden values. Independently decode the preserved snapshot metadata/coins and hash outpoint || uint32_le((height << 1) + coinbase) || CTxOut with SHA256d to cross-check the three AssumeutxoData values. AssumeutxoData hash_serialized changes: height 110 9b2a277a3e3b979f1a539d57e949495d7f8247312dbc32bce6619128c192b44b -> ffb210087e1ed14526c0c08a3ec3a7c8e288079eaa68acb87d3d4d9fd746079f; height 200 8a5bdd92252fc6b24663244bbe958c947bb036dc1f94ccd15439f48d8d1cb4e3 -> 16e00a64db4fa48dd989dce86d8677f41797d52044e5fc86021aa88cc22b665b; height 299 2618646eb7f9b17a1982e206f94e8feec3efb3b7e7e97ade16b658eef7636519 -> d7f46f9830ea11f1bfc565b08f63b66f09e1403b54c988ede40461cf0846fcba. Also refresh rpc_dumptxoutset txoutset_hash to 3baec1b74f1f02749a2b519655f84326aa903ed00bca049950efffb927ac2b1d, its deterministic snapshot-file checksum from e8b1b739921ea48cc87021cd47adc711bf864c28fe82a0d1b3a139f32fe377b3 to 3ee2d4e678f0bcb73e28648434e4b32b5f6ffa600625905ad18fae2a02f42b26, and feature_utxo_set_hash to 8d439ff1e8fdffcdc5006e9b50c9ec5a33cf839313ab63401e6862a9c48bf093. evo_hash is unaffected and remains f2ccd3fef604df58a0c174489821e16912c9332969a267650cd040e85fb2adde at height 299. Verified that evo::GetEvoSnapshotHash hashes canonical CEvoSnapshot serialization with its own CSHA256 path and does not use coinstats TxOutSer, ApplyCoinHash, or ComputeUTXOStats.

…nvalid hash 811067c test: add coverage for snapshot chainstate not matching AssumeUTXO parameters (pablomartin4btc) 4a5be10 assumeutxo, blockstorage: prevent core dump on invalid hash (pablomartin4btc) Pull request description: While reviewing bitcoin#27596 (ran `loadtxoutset` in `mainnet` before `m_assumeutxo_data` is empty as [currently](https://github.com/jamesob/bitcoin/blob/434495a8c1496ca23fe35b84499f3daf668d76b8/src/kernel/chainparams.cpp#L175-L177) in master - back to 1b1d711), got a `core dumped`, so it seems there's a potential issue if new releases ever remove snapshot details or a semi-experienced user performs a `loadtxoutset` on a different "customised" binary version (not sure if this is a real use case). ``` 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] Using obfuscation key for /tmp/.test_utxo_2/blocks/index: 0000000000000000 node/blockstorage.cpp:390 LoadBlockIndex: Assertion `GetParams().AssumeutxoForBlockhash(*snapshot_blockhash)' failed. Aborted (core dumped) ``` <details> <summary>This is also happening before IBD is completed (<code>background validation</code> still being performed as it can be seen in rpc <code>getchainstates</code>)</summary> ``` /src/bitcoin-cli -datadir=${AU_DATADIR} getchainstates { "headers": 813097, "chainstates": [ { "blocks": 368249, "bestblockhash": "00000000000000000b7a08224a1cb00d337100ba7a46c03d04b2c2d8964efc37", "difficulty": 52278304845.59168, "verificationprogress": 0.086288278873286, "coins_db_cache_bytes": 7969177, "coins_tip_cache_bytes": 14908338995, "validated": true }, { "blocks": 813097, "bestblockhash": "0000000000000000000270c9fdce7b17db64cca91f90106964b58e33a4d91089", "difficulty": 61030681983175.59, "verificationprogress": 0.999997140098457, "coins_db_cache_bytes": 419430, "coins_tip_cache_bytes": 784649420, "snapshot_blockhash": "00000000000000000002a7c4c1e48d76c5a37902165a270156b7a8d72728a054", "validated": false } ] } ``` </details> <details> <summary>Steps to reproduce the core dump error and its output:</summary> 1. Perform a `loadtxoutset` in `mainnet` on compiled `bitcoind` adding the block hash from Sjors's [commit](Sjors@24deb20). 2. Once step 1 finishes, remove the added code from step 1 and compile again or just compile `master` without any changes on top. 3. Run `bitcoind`, soon it'll crash with: ``` 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] init message: Loading block index… 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] Assuming ancestors of block 00000000000000000001a0a448d6cf2546b06801389cc030b2b18c6491266815 have valid signatures. 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] Setting nMinimumChainWork=000000000000000000000000000000000000000052b2559353df4117b7348b64 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] Prune configured to target 3000 MiB on disk for block and undo files. 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] [snapshot] detected active snapshot chainstate (/tmp/.test_utxo_2/chainstate_snapshot) - loading 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] [snapshot] switching active chainstate to Chainstate [snapshot] @ height -1 (null) 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] Opening LevelDB in /tmp/.test_utxo_2/blocks/index 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] Opened LevelDB successfully 2023-10-18T17:42:52Z [init] Using obfuscation key for /tmp/.test_utxo_2/blocks/index: 0000000000000000 node/blockstorage.cpp:390 LoadBlockIndex: Assertion `GetParams().AssumeutxoForBlockhash(*snapshot_blockhash)' failed. Aborted (core dumped) ``` </details> <details> <summary>After original change, error message output:</summary> ``` 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] init message: Loading block index… 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] Assuming ancestors of block 00000000000000000001a0a448d6cf2546b06801389cc030b2b18c6491266815 have valid signatures. 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] Setting nMinimumChainWork=000000000000000000000000000000000000000052b2559353df4117b7348b64 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] Prune configured to target 3000 MiB on disk for block and undo files. 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] [snapshot] detected active snapshot chainstate (/tmp/.test_utxo_2/chainstate_snapshot) - loading 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] [snapshot] switching active chainstate to Chainstate [snapshot] @ height -1 (null) 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] Opening LevelDB in /tmp/.test_utxo_2/blocks/index 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] Opened LevelDB successfully 2023-10-20T15:49:12Z [init] Using obfuscation key for /tmp/.test_utxo_2/blocks/index: 0000000000000000 2023-10-20T15:49:13Z [init] *** Assumeutxo data not found for the given blockhash '00000000000000000002a7c4c1e48d76c5a37902165a270156b7a8d72728a054'. 2023-10-20T15:49:13Z [init] Error: Assumeutxo data not found for the given blockhash '00000000000000000002a7c4c1e48d76c5a37902165a270156b7a8d72728a054'. Error: Assumeutxo data not found for the given blockhash '00000000000000000002a7c4c1e48d76c5a37902165a270156b7a8d72728a054'. 2023-10-20T15:49:13Z [init] Shutdown requested. Exiting. 2023-10-20T15:49:13Z [init] Shutdown: In progress... 2023-10-20T15:49:13Z [scheduler] scheduler thread exit 2023-10-20T15:49:13Z [shutoff] Flushed fee estimates to fee_estimates.dat. 2023-10-20T15:49:13Z [shutoff] Shutdown: done ``` </details> <details> <summary>Alternative on error handling using <code>return error()</code> instead of <code>return FatalError()</code> used in this PR, which produces a different output and perhaps confusing:</summary> ``` 2023-10-20T21:45:58Z [init] Using obfuscation key for /tmp/.test_utxo_2/blocks/index: 0000000000000000 2023-10-20T21:45:59Z [init] ERROR: Assumeutxo data not found for the given blockhash '00000000000000000002a7c4c1e48d76c5a37902165a270156b7a8d72728a054'. 2023-10-20T21:45:59Z [init] : Error loading block database. Please restart with -reindex or -reindex-chainstate to recover. : Error loading block database. Please restart with -reindex or -reindex-chainstate to recover. 2023-10-20T21:45:59Z [init] Aborted block database rebuild. Exiting. 2023-10-20T21:45:59Z [init] Shutdown: In progress... 2023-10-20T21:45:59Z [scheduler] scheduler thread exit 2023-10-20T21:45:59Z [shutoff] Flushed fee estimates to fee_estimates.dat. 2023-10-20T21:45:59Z [shutoff] Shutdown: done ``` </details> <details> <summary>Current state (including ryanofsky <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28698#discussion_r1368635965">suggestion</a>), after code change, error message output:</summary> ``` 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [init] Using obfuscation key for /home/pablo/.test_utxo_2/regtest/blocks/index: 0000000000000000 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [init] *** Assumeutxo data not found for the given blockhash 'f09b5835f3f8b39481f2af3257bbc2e82845552d4d2d6d31cf520fc24263ed5b'. 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [init] Error: A fatal internal error occurred, see debug.log for details Error: A fatal internal error occurred, see debug.log for details 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [init] Shutdown requested. Exiting. 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [init] Shutdown: In progress... 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [scheduler] scheduler thread exit 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [shutoff] Flushed fee estimates to fee_estimates.dat. 2023-10-25T02:29:57Z [shutoff] Shutdown: done ``` </details> ACKs for top commit: naumenkogs: ACK 811067c theStack: ACK 811067c ryanofsky: Code review ACK 811067c. Tree-SHA512: cfc137b0a4f638b99fd7dac2c35cc729ef71ae1166a2a8960a91055ec90841cb33aed589834012cfe0e157937e2a76a88d1020ea1df2bc98e1114eb1fc8eaae4

…on the assumeutxo invalid hash dump - follow-up bitcoin#28698 7de7685 test, assumeutxo: Use assert_debug_log for error details (pablomartin4btc) Pull request description: This is a follow-up on the invalid hash dump fix bitcoin#28698, [suggested](bitcoin#28698 (review)) by theStack and agreed by Sjors and ryanofsky. ACKs for top commit: Sjors: ACK 7de7685 maflcko: lgtm ACK 7de7685 Tree-SHA512: 036b3cef3084e3ead8923e8dcabe4fa7ebe97fb514d223aa38bc38df10337e3fe3113e42322178b58fb03fcd4511af4b5b56bceecbb7ded5b9758842c70db3f2

997b9a7 test: add assumeutxo wallet test (Sjors Provoost) Pull request description: Extracted from bitcoin#28616, this adds a (very) basic wallet test for assume utxo. It checks some circumstances where a backup can and can't be loaded. ACKs for top commit: maflcko: lgtm ACK 997b9a7 achow101: ACK 997b9a7 theStack: Code-review ACK 997b9a7 Tree-SHA512: 69474e56c6a46bb4f30fc54f8e5844766ac2a5f8226bb0b168d11ae1e3d4eae58570c1f1b4cc2b2f6f51b5d0e055bbe2bbd11684265215e01d4eb81ab4b7b0bb

The bitcoin#28562 replay renamed this message in the (since-removed) evo/snapshot_load.cpp copy of PopulateAndValidateSnapshot; port the rename to the retained validation.cpp copy so both work-comparator failures report identically. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

The bitcoin#27596 replay registered the Dash indexes in node.indexes via the pre-dashpay#7547 globals, which no longer exist; use the NodeContext members. Fold into the 27596 adaptation commit when the M5 PR is cut. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…n status The capture fired only when the background tip pointed exactly at the snapshot base, but what makes the EvoDB lookup safe is that this node fully validated the base block itself. Upstream's CreateAndActivateUTXOSnapshot temporarily rewinds the background tip by one block around ActivateSnapshot, so the tip predicate skipped the capture and completion failed with EVO_STATE_MISMATCH despite a fully validated base. Gate on BLOCK_VALID_SCRIPTS instead and refresh the stale pre-payload comment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

…idation Flipping currentLimit's low bit now violates the currentLimit <= locked invariant on this fixture (locked is zero), so the corruption is rejected during decoding before the hash comparison the case exists to exercise. Tamper latelyUnlocked instead, and keep the currentLimit flip as explicit coverage of the decode-time semantic rejection. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

With loadtxoutset a snapshot chainstate legitimately exists before its base header arrives, so the M3-era LoadBlockIndex hard error (and its test) is superseded: candidate admission and CheckBlockIndex already tolerate a null snapshot base, and snapshot_startup_missing_base_header_is_nonfatal covers the replacement behavior. This matches the reviewed pre-decomposition M5 disposition; fold into the load-integration commit when the M5 PR is cut. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

PastaPastaPasta mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2026

backport: assumeutxo M6 — hardening (bitcoin#29370 + A4 batch) #55

Open

4 tasks

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from a0dd520 to 5737704 Compare July 12, 2026 14:37

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from 5737704 to da6888b Compare July 12, 2026 16:03

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from da6888b to 6ac9425 Compare July 13, 2026 22:45

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from 6ac9425 to 4048e5c Compare July 14, 2026 05:10

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from 4048e5c to 02e40f9 Compare July 14, 2026 17:01

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from 02e40f9 to cb7676a Compare July 20, 2026 16:59

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch 2 times, most recently from d181598 to aa9b488 Compare August 1, 2026 19:55

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from aa9b488 to 227d49a Compare August 1, 2026 22:05

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from 227d49a to 1bcd1dc Compare August 1, 2026 22:27

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from 1bcd1dc to 674deb2 Compare August 1, 2026 22:44

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch 2 times, most recently from a98bb62 to 8b11ebd Compare August 1, 2026 23:20

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch 2 times, most recently from 1e5a6d0 to b233c3b Compare August 1, 2026 23:46

PastaPastaPasta and others added 28 commits August 20, 2026 08:37

backport: adapt Dash for bitcoin#27596

399a9df

test: adapt bitcoin#27596 coverage for Dash

ec2e7d8

feat: allow exact regtest AssumeUTXO authorization

3917b03

fix: preserve assumed-valid block index state

f84c3b6

fix: keep snapshot quorum lookups cache-only

aecec1a

fix: initialize BLS before snapshot cleanup

7332dc1

test: expand feature_assumeutxo_dash.py to full E2E

360e976

refactor: break blockfilter circular dependency from bitcoin#27596 work

c6eb262

test: avoid restoring removed global txindex

e08d111

kernel: deduplicate BlockInfo declarations

9f74163

PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset branch from 7cc6d1e to 6fbad11 Compare August 20, 2026 13:45

Navigation Menu

backport: assumeutxo M5 — loadtxoutset end-to-end (restacked on decomposed M4) - #54

backport: assumeutxo M5 — loadtxoutset end-to-end (restacked on decomposed M4)#54
PastaPastaPasta wants to merge 30 commits into
assumeutxo/m4-evo-snapshotfrom
assumeutxo/m5-loadtxoutset

PastaPastaPasta commented Jul 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review skipped

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Conversation

PastaPastaPasta commented Jul 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

M5 preview — loadtxoutset end-to-end, restacked on the decomposed M4 series

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review skipped

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

PastaPastaPasta commented Jul 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading