📅 Original date posted:2018-12-12
📝 Original message:Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> Here is a combined proposal:
> * Three new sighash flags are added: SIGHASH_NOINPUT, SIGHASH_NOFEE,
> and SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK.
> * A new opcode OP_MASK is added, which acts as a NOP during execution.
> * The sighash is computed like in BIP143, but:
> * If SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK is present, for every OP_MASK in scriptCode
> the subsequent opcode/push is removed.
I'm asking on-list because I'm sure I'm not the only confused one.
Having the SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK flag is redundant AFAICT: why not always
perform mask-removal for signing?
If you're signing arbitrary scripts, you're surely in trouble already?
And I am struggling to understand the role of scriptmask in a taproot
world, where the alternate script is both hidden and general?
I look forward to learning what I missed!
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-07 18:15:35
in reply to nevent1q…85hg
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-07 18:15:35Event JSON
{
"id": "863d9d397f1b9348b5606d97d6831e752f77b715390c28d5ca25b0abf64f3684",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686161735,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"77c824d861e497590991b7dc940a75787db11a7b2eab6adcf5563d0847a4df18",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b19802e7ce3ce4a5a2f0e4c2a705cc1df18e26ac45f70f03e854cadef6f2523",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-12-12\n📝 Original message:Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e writes:\n\u003e Here is a combined proposal:\n\u003e * Three new sighash flags are added: SIGHASH_NOINPUT, SIGHASH_NOFEE,\n\u003e and SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK.\n\u003e * A new opcode OP_MASK is added, which acts as a NOP during execution.\n\u003e * The sighash is computed like in BIP143, but:\n\u003e * If SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK is present, for every OP_MASK in scriptCode\n\u003e the subsequent opcode/push is removed.\n\nI'm asking on-list because I'm sure I'm not the only confused one.\n\nHaving the SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK flag is redundant AFAICT: why not always\nperform mask-removal for signing?\n\nIf you're signing arbitrary scripts, you're surely in trouble already?\n\nAnd I am struggling to understand the role of scriptmask in a taproot\nworld, where the alternate script is both hidden and general?\n\nI look forward to learning what I missed!\nRusty.",
"sig": "0acf8e1482b1038e0565bfea63e9334ca1f8ac9c6ad4240aa06f783552bd881f2ffa54173f81692102680930f94e83bd436dc27f23bee9636addbb330cb10252"
}