📅 Original date posted:2015-02-13
📝 Original message:On 12/02/15 22:13, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> Where is the Specification section?? Does this support arbitrary scripts, or
> only the simplest CHECKMULTISIG case?
The BIP is a process for deriving only the type of scripts you would
encounter doing addmultisigaddress. More complicated scripts would
require more metadata to be shared, but the only case we describe is
when given public keys and the number of signatures required.
You're right, we're missing a Specification. I have tweaked the document
to cover this now.
On 13/02/15 07:53, Peter Todd wrote:
> It might be enough to rewrite this BIP to basically say "all pubkeys
> executed by all CHECKMULTISIG opcodes will be in the following
> canonical order", followed by some explanatory examples of how to
> apply this simple rule. OTOH we don't yet have a standard way of even
> talking about arbitrary scripts, so it may very well turn out to be
> the case that the above rule is too restrictive in many cases - I
> certainly would not want to do a soft-fork to enforce this, or even
> make it an IsStandard() rule.
It would be interesting, but I agree it should not be brought into these
validation rules - just a convention for people to follow for now. I
think it's fair that implementers are free to order them however they
please. But I think there is good reason for wallets to opt in to the
convention and declare this, for ease of recovery, and for
interoperability reasons.
--
Thomas Kerin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My PGP key can be found here <http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3F0D2F83A2966155>;
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150213/38ec3d07/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0xA2966155.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 5712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150213/38ec3d07/attachment.bin>;
Thomas Kerin [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…nt5am
2023-06-07 15:30:30
in reply to nevent1q…mnv4
Author Public Key
npub1e4azew50kk9xzvfpqxzlyftkjt6kken0kf9lnncpdj524f9y4cqsfnt5amPublished at
2023-06-07 15:30:30Event JSON
{
"id": "cb2b96fb840c797c1c0af9bf1378e455ccea59f1c9314dc20aa26d10fb3f03c5",
"pubkey": "cd7a2cba8fb58a6131210185f2257692f56b666fb24bf9cf016ca8aaa4a4ae01",
"created_at": 1686151830,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6fe38e9bdbfb8e7b265ec7455bb55fed00b8dc2d19b617d9c69ed81fe0cca2fa",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9343304c85c621c59f99431af4251d04030520d13037e81a584e378700cea69a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e7bc665863fd1ca2200845ab536f9b5fa86c465fc4322ae11ce19b054512d50f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-13\n📝 Original message:On 12/02/15 22:13, Luke Dashjr wrote:\n\u003e Where is the Specification section?? Does this support arbitrary scripts, or \n\u003e only the simplest CHECKMULTISIG case?\n\nThe BIP is a process for deriving only the type of scripts you would\nencounter doing addmultisigaddress. More complicated scripts would\nrequire more metadata to be shared, but the only case we describe is\nwhen given public keys and the number of signatures required.\n\nYou're right, we're missing a Specification. I have tweaked the document\nto cover this now.\n\n\n\nOn 13/02/15 07:53, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e It might be enough to rewrite this BIP to basically say \"all pubkeys\n\u003e executed by all CHECKMULTISIG opcodes will be in the following\n\u003e canonical order\", followed by some explanatory examples of how to\n\u003e apply this simple rule. OTOH we don't yet have a standard way of even\n\u003e talking about arbitrary scripts, so it may very well turn out to be\n\u003e the case that the above rule is too restrictive in many cases - I\n\u003e certainly would not want to do a soft-fork to enforce this, or even\n\u003e make it an IsStandard() rule.\n\nIt would be interesting, but I agree it should not be brought into these\nvalidation rules - just a convention for people to follow for now. I\nthink it's fair that implementers are free to order them however they\nplease. But I think there is good reason for wallets to opt in to the\nconvention and declare this, for ease of recovery, and for\ninteroperability reasons. \n\n\n-- \nThomas Kerin\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMy PGP key can be found here \u003chttp://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get\u0026search=0x3F0D2F83A2966155\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150213/38ec3d07/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: 0xA2966155.asc\nType: application/pgp-keys\nSize: 5712 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150213/38ec3d07/attachment.bin\u003e",
"sig": "194ad26233d9329e47e6cc4bd56292d1ad1db0a0a6a0d0cb325b6906a31f6622bc6e33bd4e3fa73fa39e8629821fdb34fa73b2140ff71dc938f9f1c757430359"
}