Explains the reason behind 198bbae where we had earlier switched from operating on unique_ptr<Node> to plain Node.

Also give more appropriate name to test.

Co-authored-by: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>

CI failure due to default ~Node() implementation has been confirmed on Windows native, MacOS native, 32-bit ARM, ASan+LSan+UBSan+integer, i686, TSan, MSan. (Not on Alpine as that runs without CI_LIMIT_STACK_SIZE).

Co-authored-by: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lőrinc <pap.lorinc@gmail.com>

…nLockTime`, `nSequence`)

9f28120 kernel: Add API function for getting a tx input's nSequence (Sebastian Falbesoner)
6b64b18 kernel: Add API function for getting a tx's nLockTime (Sebastian Falbesoner)

Pull request description:

  This PR introduces two new C API functions to libbitcoinkernel:
  * `btck_transaction_get_locktime` to access a transaction's `nLockTime` value
  * `btck_transaction_input_get_sequence` to access a transaction input's `nSequence` value

  Inspired by https://bnoc.xyz/t/forward-compatible-coinbase-locktimes-for-bip-54. After reading this I thought it would be a nice/useful showcase to check BIP54 compliance of (historical) blocks using bitcoinkernel, without having to manually deserialize the transaction (this is just about one of the four BIP54 rules though, especially the sigops limit is much more involved).

ACKs for top commit:
  sedited:
    ACK 9f28120
  yuvicc:
    ACK 9f28120
  stickies-v:
    ACK 9f28120

Tree-SHA512: 9eae795d6e4b9b367bbfe2665b916121ef64031e8d10667c71741344b5eea4c2562862a937bdf1363cc66b67bb5d48392c9f44e52f0d92d2a5a65e10d061b703

…w-ups)

39e3295 test(miniscript): Check for depth rather than script size (Hodlinator)
5af5e87 test(miniscript): Make tested script valid (Hodlinator)
fd7c494 doc(miniscript): Explain why we operate on vectors (Hodlinator)
da51b5e refactor(miniscript): Move keys to avoid copy (Hodlinator)

Pull request description:

  * Add missing move #31713 (comment)
  * Document reason behind moving entire `vector`s #31713 (comment)
  * Make miniscript valid and improve test name #31713 (comment)
  * Check for miniscript node depth rather than script size #31713 (comment)

ACKs for top commit:
  l0rinc:
    ACK 39e3295
  sedited:
    ACK 39e3295
  darosior:
    Github light ACK 39e3295. Code looks correct to me. I don't understand why i'm co-author of the last commit, since i did not author any code in there. 🤷

Tree-SHA512: 88c240183d7ebe93e3a1d3d65969b435775190f15d2845b58dbd16938553bb6490ab57400544f90a5a3f9a73245dce769ffc4868ae6fb7513f7db46743bfb9e1