From: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>,
pete@petertodd•org, bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Cc: ruben@blocktrail•com
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for deterministic pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 23:43:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DE8C1C.60804@thomaskerin.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201502122213.34765.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]
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>
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2356 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: 0xA2966155.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 5804 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-13 23:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-12 21:42 Thomas Kerin
2015-02-12 22:13 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-02-13 7:53 ` Peter Todd
2015-02-13 9:01 ` Ruben de Vries
2015-05-24 0:44 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-02-13 23:43 ` Thomas Kerin [this message]
2015-05-22 17:28 ` Thomas Kerin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54DE8C1C.60804@thomaskerin.io \
--to=me@thomaskerin$(echo .)io \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=ruben@blocktrail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox