Burn assets by group key #1812

darioAnongba · 2025-09-19T11:49:09Z

Enable burning of assets by specifying a group key.

Add AssetSpecifier to tapcommon.proto and use it in the BurnAssetRequest
Change tapcli to accept group_key param in tapd assets burn commands
Update tapfreighter to support passing a group key in the asset specifier
Update BurnAsset RPC request to accept an AssetSpecifier. Breaking change!
Update integration tests

Example:

Mint asset in group key X: 1000 units
Mint asset in group X: 100 units
Burn 1080 units
Creates 3 outputs:
- change: 20 units
- burn output: 1000 units
- burn output: 80 units

GeorgeTsagk

Great work!

.gitignore

taprpc/taprootassets.proto

cmd/commands/assets.go

itest/burn_test.go

tapfreighter/fund.go

tapfreighter/wallet.go

coveralls · 2025-09-30T12:13:09Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18141060997

Details

106 of 299 (35.45%) changed or added relevant lines in 5 files are covered.
65 unchanged lines in 16 files lost coverage.
Overall coverage decreased (-0.05%) to 56.466%

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
taprpc/taprootassets.pb.go	0	5	0.0%
tapfreighter/wallet.go	24	35	68.57%
taprpc/tapcommon.pb.go	30	68	44.12%
rpcserver.go	52	96	54.17%
cmd/commands/assets.go	0	95	0.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
fn/context_guard.go	1	91.94%
address/mock.go	2	96.2%
mssmt/compacted_tree.go	2	77.65%
tapdb/mssmt.go	2	90.45%
tapdb/multiverse.go	2	80.59%
tapdb/sqlc/transfers.sql.go	2	83.33%
tapgarden/custodian.go	2	76.83%
universe_rpc_diff.go	2	76.0%
universe/syncer.go	2	84.22%
itest/assertions.go	3	87.67%

Totals
Change from base Build 18140243029:	-0.05%
Covered Lines:	63754
Relevant Lines:	112906

💛 - Coveralls

GeorgeTsagk

getting there
some final Qs

rpcserver.go

itest/burn_test.go

docs/release-notes/release-notes-0.7.0.md

GeorgeTsagk

LGTM, pending some nits

tapfreighter/wallet.go

taprpc/taprootassets.proto

GeorgeTsagk · 2025-10-20T14:23:16Z

We'll have to rebase 0-8-0-staging on main in order to get the LiT tests working again (there were some version bumps)

darioAnongba · 2025-10-21T19:49:26Z

Oops @GeorgeTsagk, deleted a comment but wasn't on purpose. Here is the response:

Yes, I found them particularly annoying and they didn't help since in the tests I can either log anything I want to debug or apply an assertion as part of the test. Especially when we are dumping the entire response multiple times in the test.

Allow the creation of multiple vPackets when burning by group key.

GeorgeTsagk

re-ACKing

ffranr

Thank you for your continued effort and patience with this PR. I just want to confirm that we're aligned on the behavior for asset-ID-specific burning of grouped assets.

ffranr · 2025-10-27T22:43:25Z

rpcserver.go

+	// Handle different scenarios based on what was provided:
+	// 1. If only assetID is provided, look up the group key.
+	// 2. If only groupKey is provided, use it directly
+	// 3. If both are provided, validate consistency.
+	switch {
+	case assetID != nil && groupKey == nil:
+		assetGroup, err := r.cfg.TapAddrBook.QueryAssetGroupByID(
+			ctx, *assetID,
+		)
+		switch {
+		case err == nil && assetGroup.GroupKey != nil:
+			groupKey = &assetGroup.GroupPubKey
+
+		case errors.Is(err, address.ErrAssetGroupUnknown):
+			rpcsLog.Trace("Asset group key not found, asset " +
+				"may not be part of a group")
+
+		case err != nil:
+			return nil, fmt.Errorf("error querying asset "+
+				"group: %w", err)
+		}


I thought the intended behaviour was:

If only an asset ID is specified, burn assets matching that asset ID.

If only an asset group is specified, burn across any tranche within that group.

If both an asset ID and an asset group are specified, burn assets matching the asset ID, but verify that the asset belongs to the specified group.

This approach allows burning assets across a group when the caller doesn’t care about the tranche, while preserving the option to target specific tranches (asset IDs) when needed.

Perhaps something like this:
https://gist.github.com/ffranr/9b94850c4fc828a1a3e5170b1d1af199

// 1. If only assetID is provided, look up the group key.

This part concerns me slightly. Do we assert in the integration test that when a group collectable is burned by asset ID, only that specific asset ID is burned and not another collectable from the same group? Why do we need to populate the group key when only an asset ID is specified?

If only an asset ID is specified, burn assets matching that asset ID.

If only an asset group is specified, burn across any tranche within that group.

If both an asset ID and an asset group are specified, burn assets matching the asset ID, but verify that the asset belongs to the specified group.

This is what the code does. Did you find a bug in the current logic that somehow doesn't execute this flow?

Why do we need to populate the group key when only an asset ID is specified

This branche of the PR is the one that does not change. As you can see, the previous code already populates the group key when only the assetID is specified. My goal was specifically not to alter the previous behavior. I can investigate the reason why the group key is needed but that should not matter for this PR unless we want to change the previous logic.

taprpc/taprootassets.proto

cmd/commands/assets.go

Return multiple proofs in BurnAssetResponse.

darioAnongba self-assigned this Sep 19, 2025

darioAnongba requested review from GeorgeTsagk and ffranr and removed request for GeorgeTsagk September 19, 2025 12:00

levmi added this to Taproot-Assets Project Board Sep 22, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to 🆕 New in Taproot-Assets Project Board Sep 22, 2025

levmi moved this from 🆕 New to 🏗 In progress in Taproot-Assets Project Board Sep 22, 2025

darioAnongba marked this pull request as ready for review September 23, 2025 11:27

darioAnongba moved this from 🏗 In progress to 👀 In review in Taproot-Assets Project Board Sep 23, 2025

GeorgeTsagk reviewed Sep 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

levmi added this to the v0.8 milestone Sep 25, 2025

darioAnongba removed the request for review from ffranr September 25, 2025 15:59

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch 3 times, most recently from 13a399f to 9cd15a7 Compare September 29, 2025 10:57

darioAnongba requested a review from GeorgeTsagk September 29, 2025 10:57

jtobin self-requested a review September 29, 2025 13:08

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch from 9cd15a7 to 7c6e2ba Compare September 30, 2025 11:47

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch 2 times, most recently from a9fc25c to 544f5b4 Compare September 30, 2025 16:39

darioAnongba requested review from ffranr and removed request for jtobin September 30, 2025 16:42

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch 2 times, most recently from c0a0cae to c3082d6 Compare September 30, 2025 19:21

darioAnongba added the burning label Oct 1, 2025

darioAnongba mentioned this pull request Oct 1, 2025

docs: add docs for how burns work within the protocol and codebase #1786

Open

darioAnongba added the group_key label Oct 1, 2025

darioAnongba changed the base branch from main to 0-8-0-staging October 1, 2025 15:09

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch 4 times, most recently from 86b225f to ca49ac9 Compare October 13, 2025 10:19

darioAnongba requested a review from ffranr October 13, 2025 10:41

GeorgeTsagk reviewed Oct 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

rpcserver.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

itest/burn_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

itest/burn_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

itest/burn_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

docs/release-notes/release-notes-0.7.0.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch 2 times, most recently from 24569f4 to 34ff428 Compare October 16, 2025 10:03

darioAnongba requested a review from GeorgeTsagk October 16, 2025 10:03

GeorgeTsagk approved these changes Oct 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

tapfreighter/wallet.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tapfreighter/wallet.go Show resolved Hide resolved

taprpc/taprootassets.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

GeorgeTsagk force-pushed the 0-8-0-staging branch from 965998d to 83a4116 Compare October 20, 2025 16:16

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch from 34ff428 to 35da11c Compare October 21, 2025 19:46

lightninglabs deleted a comment from GeorgeTsagk Oct 21, 2025

tapfreighter: burn by group key

1f42525

Allow the creation of multiple vPackets when burning by group key.

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch from 35da11c to 926db4e Compare October 21, 2025 19:55

darioAnongba requested a review from GeorgeTsagk October 22, 2025 15:26

GeorgeTsagk approved these changes Oct 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

ffranr reviewed Oct 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

darioAnongba added 5 commits October 28, 2025 12:26

taprpc: AssetSpecifier in BurnAssetRequest

9d8f087

rpc: burn by group key

56e571c

Return multiple proofs in BurnAssetResponse.

cmd: add group_key flag to tapcli assets burn

6755ddd

itest: burn by group key

5e2bbcd

docs: add release notes

5b69361

darioAnongba force-pushed the feat/burn-group-key branch from 926db4e to 5b69361 Compare October 28, 2025 11:26

darioAnongba requested a review from ffranr October 28, 2025 11:44

ffranr approved these changes Oct 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

ffranr merged commit 80083ec into 0-8-0-staging Oct 28, 2025
37 of 38 checks passed

github-project-automation bot moved this from 👀 In review to ✅ Done in Taproot-Assets Project Board Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Burn assets by group key #1812

Burn assets by group key #1812

Conversation

darioAnongba commented Sep 19, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GeorgeTsagk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Sep 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18141060997

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

GeorgeTsagk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GeorgeTsagk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GeorgeTsagk commented Oct 20, 2025

Uh oh!

darioAnongba commented Oct 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

GeorgeTsagk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ffranr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ffranr Oct 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ffranr Oct 27, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

darioAnongba Oct 28, 2025 • 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!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

darioAnongba commented Sep 19, 2025 •

edited

Loading

coveralls commented Sep 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

darioAnongba commented Oct 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

darioAnongba Oct 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading