From: "Ferdinando M. Ametrano" <ferdinando@ametrano•net>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Against proprietary and PoR fields in PSBT BIP174
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 00:38:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADfmNEkJfvefTaAg42PU5DWu1PLJhXxptVY69yVJNRCdx4fuBQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADfmNEk3nr33MMym1D_n8_DWgj39AWoOuTpFbBO0U6MZis_=vA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1982 bytes --]
After having checked that the BIP174 test vectors do not cover the
*proprietary* and *proof-of-reserves* types, I went ahead and submitted a
PR to the bips repo for the removal of those fields from the PSBT
specifications
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1038
--
*Ferdinando M. Ametrano*
www.ametrano.net/about
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:01 AM Ferdinando M. Ametrano <
ferdinando@ametrano•net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While implementing PSBT support in the *btclib* library (
> https://github.com/btclib-org/btclib), I have failed to understand the
> rationale for the *proprietary* and *proof-of-reserves* types.
>
> First off, at face value they have nothing to do with the operations
> intrinsically required to finalize a valid transaction from PSBT
> manipulation.
>
> Moreover, whatever information content they can provide for non-standard
> PSBT manipulation, that content could stay in the *unknown* field without
> any loss of generality. How to structure and deal with unknown data would
> be the responsibility of proprietary software or users wanting to provide
> proof-of-reserve. As long as BIP174 clearly prescribes that unknown data
> must be kept during PSBT manipulation, that should be enough.
>
> Let me stress the above point: I have a project where we include
> proprietary information in the PSBT. Any PSBT software supporting unknown
> data gently keeps our proprietary information and our proprietary software
> retrieves that data from serialized PSBT with no problem. There is no need
> for a PSBT implementation to provide explicit support for *proprietary*
> and *proof-of-reserves* types.
>
> My last conclusion is reinforced by the evidence of all PSBT
> implementations I know of, including bitcoin core and HWI, not implementing
> proprietary and proof-of-reserve types. There is a high probability that
> part of BIP174 would be just ignored.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Thanks
> --
> *Ferdinando M. Ametrano*
> www.ametrano.net/about
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5623 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-16 23:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-16 23:01 Ferdinando M. Ametrano
2020-11-16 23:38 ` Ferdinando M. Ametrano [this message]
2020-11-26 23:24 ` Jonathan Underwood
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=CADfmNEkJfvefTaAg42PU5DWu1PLJhXxptVY69yVJNRCdx4fuBQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ferdinando@ametrano$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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