Transaction cleanup

[fromheten]

My little TX cleanup

• Removed superfluous functions that have more clear representations in the Records
• Identified a problem of how our inputs work - txb.addInput takes a TXID and a number - that number is the index in that TX list of outputs that we spend. We had misunderstood that.
• Fixed so that Transactions get inputs from former UTXOs

[mattgstevens]

wanting to turn the test transaction.buildTransaction back on but having troubles building mockData.

[fromheten]

Ok, so I havent tested your last commit with an actual bitcoin transaction, but it looks good and CI says it's happy.

Only thing I think should change

• Calling the unspent transaction outputs UTXO is better. Usually, I'm a fan of lvn (longVariableNames) but afaik UTXO is a abbreviation-as-a-word in the same fashion as JSON, XML, HTTP, IP, etc. Of course the compiler gives 0 shits about variable names, so the code works either way, so this is not a blocker.

Could you try this out with an actual transaction and payout? Then I say LGTM 👏

[mattgstevens]

Calling them UXTO sounds good, makes tons of sense in the transaction context (and as you say, it is what the blockchain is all about)

The API call to /unspent would replace the call to /rawaddr and let us do less work. This also seems to be inline with what we will get when running a bitcoin node of our own: give it an address and ask for all unspent.

Will run a public transaction soon!

[fromheten]

I say we leave it with rawaddr for now if you don't want to change it - just because shipping is number one.

This PR is 11 days old and is earning itself an odor

[mattgstevens]

rebased with the latest master

[fromheten]

This PR is 15 days old now... Let's get it merged asap yo

[fromheten]

@mattgstevens OK I did a catch up merge. Can you review that I didn't make any stupid mistakes, test that transactions work and then LGTM?

[mattgstevens]

superseded by #44