Transaction Building/Signing/Verifying Test Vector Brainstorm

discreetlogcontracts / dlcspecs

Specification for Discreet Log Contracts

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

236 stars 36 forks source link

Transaction Building/Signing/Verifying Test Vector Brainstorm #47

Open nkohen opened 4 years ago

nkohen commented 4 years ago

I now have a working implementation of adpator-based DLCs. I would like to begin brainstorming a list of cases we want to make sure are included in the transaction building test vectors I will be generating.

Things that come immediately to my mind:

"Vanilla" construction for n outcomes where n = 2, 3, 5, 8, 100 and various oracle signatures with computed completed CETs (Happy Path)
"Vanilla" construction with invalid oracle signature
"Vanilla" construction with valid oracle signature of invalid event
Invalid refund signature
Invalid DLEQ proof on one CET, all CETs
Invalid adaptor signature (with valid DLEQ proof)
Invalid adaptor signature and invalid DLEQ proof
Invalid funding signature
Non segwit funding input
Invalid final address
Invalid offer
Invalid accept
Sign message missing signatures

Please add to this list and/or critique it!

Christewart commented 4 years ago

Closing #30 as this supersedes it

benthecarman commented 4 years ago

Negative outcome values
Incorrect fee rate on tx
fee rate given was below network min
party did not fund the correct amount
invalid change address
invalid change amount
CET has extra inputs
CET has missing/no inputs
CET has extra outputs
CET has missing/no outputs
funding tx has extra inputs
funding tx has missing/no inputs
funding tx has extra outputs
funding tx has missing/no outputs
wrong nLocktimes
wrong sequence
wrong keys in funding output script
funding output has wrong script

nkohen commented 4 years ago

* Negative outcome values

* Incorrect fee rate

* party did not fund the correct amount

* invalid change address

These I like

* invalid change amount

* CET has extra inputs

* CET has missing/no inputs

* CET has extra outputs

* CET has missing/no outputs

* funding tx has extra inputs

* funding tx has missing/no inputs

* funding tx has extra outputs

* funding tx has missing/no outputs

* wrong nLocktimes

* wrong sequence

* wrong keys in funding output script

* funding output has wrong script

These I'm a little unsure about as transactions are not actually communicated between parties so these cases will just result in invalid signatures right?

benthecarman commented 4 years ago

These I'm a little unsure about as transactions are not actually communicated between parties so these cases will just result in invalid signatures right?

Yeah, I guess these are more things to that people should testing with the test vectors

nkohen commented 4 years ago

Good point, I guess I could generate a bunch of invalid signatures in this way with error messages about how they were generated to make life easier for people when debugging

nkohen commented 4 years ago

Funding transactions with different kinds of exotic change output SPKs

nkohen commented 4 years ago

Funding transactions with various numbers of inputs from each party