📅 Original date posted:2021-04-04
📝 Original message:On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 11:20, Lloyd Fournier <lloyd.fourn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew & all,
>
> I've been working with PSBTs for a little while now. FWIW I agree with the
> change of removing the global tx and having the input/output data stored
> together in the new unified structures.
>
> One thing I've been wondering about is how output descriptors could fit
> into PSBTs. They are useful since they allow you to determine the maximum
> satisfaction weight for inputs so you can properly align fees as things get
> added. I haven't seen any discussion about including them in this revision.
> Is it simply a matter of time before they make it into a subsequent PSBT
> spec or is there something I'm missing conceptually?
>
Sipa replied to me off list some time ago and explained what I was missing.
PSBTs have all the information you could want from a descriptor already.
For example the maximum satisfaction weight can be determined from the
witness/redeem script (I had forgot these fields existed). Therefore
descriptors are more useful in higher level applications while PSBTs are
useful for communicating with signing devices. Therefore there is no reason
for PSBTs to support descriptors.
LL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210405/911a07fe/attachment-0001.html>;
Lloyd Fournier [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kh…y05yp
2023-06-07 18:31:12
in reply to nevent1q…l9lz
Author Public Key
npub1khlhcuz0jrjwa0ayznq2q9agg4zvxfvx5x7jljrvwnpfzngrcf0q7y05ypPublished at
2023-06-07 18:31:12Event JSON
{
"id": "9aee52eb508a31b90875c1a70185e437de21befa5dd26efe0c4de594dd3cdfe4",
"pubkey": "b5ff7c704f90e4eebfa414c0a017a84544c32586a1bd2fc86c74c2914d03c25e",
"created_at": 1686162672,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"377e7d03e2240477e0d2209207122b11631772035a1912c3002dc5f5130ee952",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-04\n📝 Original message:On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 11:20, Lloyd Fournier \u003clloyd.fourn at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hi Andrew \u0026 all,\n\u003e\n\u003e I've been working with PSBTs for a little while now. FWIW I agree with the\n\u003e change of removing the global tx and having the input/output data stored\n\u003e together in the new unified structures.\n\u003e\n\u003e One thing I've been wondering about is how output descriptors could fit\n\u003e into PSBTs. They are useful since they allow you to determine the maximum\n\u003e satisfaction weight for inputs so you can properly align fees as things get\n\u003e added. I haven't seen any discussion about including them in this revision.\n\u003e Is it simply a matter of time before they make it into a subsequent PSBT\n\u003e spec or is there something I'm missing conceptually?\n\u003e\n\n\nSipa replied to me off list some time ago and explained what I was missing.\nPSBTs have all the information you could want from a descriptor already.\nFor example the maximum satisfaction weight can be determined from the\nwitness/redeem script (I had forgot these fields existed). Therefore\ndescriptors are more useful in higher level applications while PSBTs are\nuseful for communicating with signing devices. Therefore there is no reason\nfor PSBTs to support descriptors.\n\nLL\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210405/911a07fe/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "e25fa4c31f87c3ae457d946f7df49f0ca1ccd5799d4136e7a04cceeb82648f63f6d1aebe26f74931f71f3836b228f3c93e4ffcdc1b95a132cab09513365cc5f5"
}