BIP375: Add test vectors + runner #2046

macgyver13 · 2025-11-26T21:09:05Z

This PR adds the test runner test_runner.py and test_vectors.json for demonstrating BIP 375 behavior.
Care was taken to minimize dependencies required to evaluate the test vectors.

Dependencies are referenced at runtime from bip-0374 instead of cloning locally.

Test generation tools moved to external repo

Feedback welcome @andrewtoth @achow101 @josibake

Test runner output

Invalid test cases: 13
=== Running Invalid Test Cases ===
Test 1: Missing DLEQ proof for ECDH share
Test 2: Invalid DLEQ proof
Test 3: Non-SIGHASH_ALL signature with silent payments
Test 4: Mixed segwit versions with silent payments
Test 5: Silent payment outputs but no ECDH shares
Test 6: Global ECDH share without DLEQ proof
Test 7: Wrong SP_V0_INFO field size
Test 8: Mixed eligible and ineligible input types
Test 9: Wrong ECDH share size
Test 10: Wrong DLEQ proof size
Test 11: Label without SP_V0_INFO
Test 12: Address mismatch
Test 13: Both global and per-input ECDH shares

=== Running Valid Test Cases ===
Test 14: Single signer with global ECDH share
Test 15: Multi-party with per-input ECDH shares
Test 16: P2WPKH to silent payment with change detection
Test 17: Silent payment to recipient with SP change (label=0)
Test 18: Multiple silent payment outputs to same scan key

- Add constants.py with BIP 375 PSBT field type definitions - Add parser.py with PSBT v2 structure parsing functions - Add minimal test_runner.py for basic structure validation - Validates PSBT magic bytes and parse-ability - All 17 test vectors pass basic structure checks - - Basic structure validation complete: 4 passed, 13 failed

- Add inputs.py with input type validation helpers - Add dependencies from previous work - - deps/bip352_utils.py - - deps/secp256k1_374.py - Validate eligible input types (P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2TR, P2SH-P2WPKH) - Check segwit version restrictions (v0-v1 only) - Verify P2SH inputs are P2SH-P2WPKH - Update test_runner.py to validate inputs Input validation complete: 6 passed, 11 failed

- Add dleq.py with DLEQ proof validation functions - Extract public keys from BIP32 derivation fields - Validate global and per-input DLEQ proofs using BIP-374 - Verify scan key consistency between ECDH and DLEQ fields - Prevent conflicting global/per-input ECDH for same scan key - Check ECDH shares exist for silent payment outputs - Update test_runner.py with comprehensive DLEQ validation DLEQ validation complete: 14 passed, 3 failed

- Add validator.py with comprehensive BIP-375 validation - Validate output field requirements (SCRIPT or SP_V0_INFO) - Check SP_V0_INFO field size (66 bytes) - Validate SP_V0_LABEL requires SP_V0_INFO - Enforce SIGHASH_ALL requirement for silent payments - Integrate all previous validation (inputs, DLEQ, ECDH) - Simplify test_runner.py to use validator module - Validation complete: 16 passed, 1 failed

- Add validate_bip352_outputs() for output script verification - Support both global and per-input ECDH share modes - Update test_runner.py to pass test material to validator

- Details core files and dependencies - Link to test_generator.py for vector generation - Provide usage instructions for test_runner.py

…l=0)" Fix compute output script ‘k’ bug - now increments for each output sharing the same scan key

nymius · 2026-01-14T19:29:09Z

bip-0375/test_runner.py

+        # Check magic bytes
+        if len(psbt_data) < 5 or psbt_data[:5] != b"psbt\xff":
+            return False, "Invalid PSBT magic"


This check is also in parse_psbt_structure. I would keep it only in one of both places.

nymius · 2026-01-14T19:38:18Z

bip-0375/parser.py

+
+            # Extract field type and handle key-value pairs
+            if key_data:
+                field_type = key_data[0]


The extraction of field_type from key_data is odd. I would use de-structure assignment to keep them separated when assigning key_data, and also use the names stated in BIP 174, e.g.:

key_type, *key_data = data[offset : offset + key_len]

nymius · 2026-01-14T20:58:34Z

bip-0375/validator.py

+                return False, f"Input {i} uses segwit version > 1 with silent payments"
+
+    # Eligible input type requirement
+    # When silent payment outputs exist, ALL inputs must be eligible types


What does ALL inputs must be eligible types mean in this context?
This is checking all inputs are valid for shared secret derivation, which is not a condition all inputs must fulfill in order to create a silent payment transaction.

Good catch - will address in the next revision

bip-0375/validator.py

nymius · 2026-01-15T18:05:59Z

bip-0375/test_vectors.json

+      "comment": "Silent payment outputs require SIGHASH_ALL signatures only"
+    },
+    {
+      "description": "Mixed segwit versions with silent payments",


I would prefer explicitness rather than conciseness in test case descriptions: Input with segwit script version greater than 1, even if it is more verbose.

bip-0375/test_vectors.json

nymius · 2026-01-15T18:15:10Z

bip-0375/test_vectors.json

+          "sp_label": null
+        }
+      ],
+      "comment": "Output script doesn't match BIP-352 computed address"


What's the difference between comment and description? Could we keep only one?

I agree these test vectors don't need both - will consolidate in next revision

nymius

cACK 4510632

I haven't been able to decode the PSBT's using bitcoin-cli decodepsbt in a per test basis. Did you have any issues?
I would consider copying the approach taken in #2084, and use secp256k1lab here.
As each PSBT change is reflected in BIP 174, maybe is worth moving the parsing, fields and PSBT validation logic to BIP 174 directory, and keep the role logic of each protocol on its own directory, like here.

macgyver13 · 2026-01-15T21:23:55Z

cACK 4510632

I haven't been able to decode the PSBT's using bitcoin-cli decodepsbt in a per test basis. Did you have any issues?

Details in comment above - PSBT v2 not supported

I would consider copying the approach taken in BIP-374: vendor secp256k1lab and use it for reference implementation #2084, and use secp256k1lab here.

I agree that approach is better than the current bip-0374 import. The current import process would have to adapt to that change regardless. I'll put that on the list for the next revision.

As each PSBT change is reflected in BIP 174, maybe is worth moving the parsing, fields and PSBT validation logic to BIP 174 directory, and keep the role logic of each protocol on its own directory, like here.

Interesting idea. Are you suggesting a storage change for this PR or expand the scope of the PSBT parsing, fields and validation to v0 and other v2 fields and move to other BIPS directories?

nymius · 2026-01-16T13:17:55Z

Interesting idea. Are you suggesting a storage change for this PR or expand the scope of the PSBT parsing, fields and validation to v0 and other v2 fields and move to other BIPS directories?

I'm suggesting the second one, but as it seems to involve more components, I wouldn't pursue it in this PR.

jonatack added Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance This BIP modification requires sign-off by the champion of the BIP being modified labels Nov 27, 2025

macgyver13 force-pushed the bip375-reference-testvectors-pr branch 3 times, most recently from d540a48 to 88dec03 Compare December 5, 2025 19:54

macgyver13 added 7 commits January 7, 2026 16:34

Add BIP-352 output script validation - address mismatch test case

1d34a45

- Add validate_bip352_outputs() for output script verification - Support both global and per-input ECDH share modes - Update test_runner.py to pass test material to validator

Add README

29f23e3

- Details core files and dependencies - Link to test_generator.py for vector generation - Provide usage instructions for test_runner.py

Add new test vector "Silent payment to recipient with SP change (labe…

4510632

…l=0)" Fix compute output script ‘k’ bug - now increments for each output sharing the same scan key

macgyver13 force-pushed the bip375-reference-testvectors-pr branch from 88dec03 to 4510632 Compare January 8, 2026 00:38

nymius reviewed Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

nymius reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

bip-0375/validator.py Show resolved Hide resolved

nymius reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

bip-0375/test_vectors.json Show resolved Hide resolved

nymius reviewed Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

macgyver13 mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2026

BIP-374: vendor secp256k1lab and use it for reference implementation #2084

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

BIP375: Add test vectors + runner #2046

BIP375: Add test vectors + runner #2046

macgyver13 commented Nov 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 14, 2026

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

macgyver13 Jan 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

macgyver13 Jan 16, 2026

Uh oh!

nymius left a comment

Uh oh!

macgyver13 commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

nymius commented Jan 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

BIP375: Add test vectors + runner #2046

Are you sure you want to change the base?

BIP375: Add test vectors + runner #2046

Conversation

macgyver13 commented Nov 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Test runner output

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 14, 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!

macgyver13 Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nymius Jan 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

macgyver13 Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nymius left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

macgyver13 commented Jan 15, 2026

Uh oh!

nymius commented Jan 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

macgyver13 commented Nov 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nymius Jan 14, 2026 •

edited

Loading