📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15
📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> Not necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as
> be impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are
> available. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession
> of funds, only that you receive funds.
By saying "not necessarily specific UTXOs", are you saying it may be
spent outputs? I'm a little confused I think.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Jim Posen <jim.posen at gmail.com> wrote:
> In this general signing-a-script context, I think a verifier might want to
> see the time conditions under which it may be spent. The proof container
> could include an optional nLockTime which defaults to 0 and nSequence which
> defaults to 0xFFFF...
Good point!
>> I think it would just use the default (SIGHASH_ALL?) for simplicity.
>> Is there a good reason to tweak it?
>
> I took another look and there should definitely be a byte appended to the
> end of the sig so that the encoding checks pass, but I think it might as
> well be a 0x00 byte since it's not actually a sighash flag.
I think the sighash flag affects the outcome of the actual
verification, but I could be mistaken.
-Kalle.
Karl Johan Alm [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e7…fg307
2023-06-07 18:11:14
in reply to nevent1q…34f5
Author Public Key
npub1e7vdq905zr4xjr5nxuz58l9jcvffxq728ysl6m2xxgr024mjy5vq4fg307Published at
2023-06-07 18:11:14Event JSON
{
"id": "ebd0424a7e911770709dcfab03eb94baae68d0c2335bcf797091cf08be7a8bcc",
"pubkey": "cf98d015f410ea690e93370543fcb2c3129303ca3921fd6d463206f557722518",
"created_at": 1686161474,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fde6d8b8cd384fa838810364bd9a6edd18aea9246ae8127a644187087642ae18",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"36c247bacfe968959faefbdc561ee1eb03376d321846854146e1f27e83272344",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Not necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as\n\u003e be impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are\n\u003e available. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession\n\u003e of funds, only that you receive funds.\n\nBy saying \"not necessarily specific UTXOs\", are you saying it may be\nspent outputs? I'm a little confused I think.\n\nOn Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Jim Posen \u003cjim.posen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e In this general signing-a-script context, I think a verifier might want to\n\u003e see the time conditions under which it may be spent. The proof container\n\u003e could include an optional nLockTime which defaults to 0 and nSequence which\n\u003e defaults to 0xFFFF...\n\nGood point!\n\n\u003e\u003e I think it would just use the default (SIGHASH_ALL?) for simplicity.\n\u003e\u003e Is there a good reason to tweak it?\n\u003e\n\u003e I took another look and there should definitely be a byte appended to the\n\u003e end of the sig so that the encoding checks pass, but I think it might as\n\u003e well be a 0x00 byte since it's not actually a sighash flag.\n\nI think the sighash flag affects the outcome of the actual\nverification, but I could be mistaken.\n\n-Kalle.",
"sig": "11b6af4110dfeaadce2d941d41f0faad711ee32fa267ecf1fd99c8793c77420f8242aac3bbadc6940eae365b7e47865f9350559d1e6231d1fc5f9b05db052143"
}