update bip0129 to reduce ambiguity #1188

1. 
   instagibbs commented at 6:46 am on September 23, 2021: member

   I read it as “both types accepted” and couldn’t find the definition of the signature format for non-p2pkh scripts, leading me to reread this section again after reading the BIP322. I think this is clearer, and if I’m wrong, it definitely needs a boost.
2. update bip0129 to reduce ambiguity

   I read it as "both types accepted" and couldn't find the definition of the signature format for non-p2pkh scripts, leading me to reread this section again after reading the BIP322. I think this is clearer, and if I'm wrong, it definitely needs a boost.

   b0c471d658
3. 
   luke-jr commented at 10:51 pm on November 4, 2021: member

   @hugohn
4. luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Nov 4, 2021
5. 
   hugohn commented at 0:23 am on November 5, 2021: contributor

   Oops sorry I missed this. Thanks @luke-jr ! @instagibbs The idea was that I wanted to make BIP-0129 future-proof. Non-legacy BIP-0322 signatures would be ideal because those signatures actually commit to the XPUBs listed in the BSMS file. When BIP-0322 is ready we could just switch to the new signature type without having to update BIP-0129. But yeah BIP-0322 is still incomplete at the moment.
6. 
   murchandamus commented at 7:51 pm on April 26, 2024: contributor

   @hugohn, @instagibbs: Could you perhaps clarify the status of this PR?
7. 
   instagibbs commented at 7:53 pm on April 26, 2024: member

   I don’t remember this :)
8. 
   murchandamus commented at 8:47 pm on April 26, 2024: contributor

   I suppose that is meant to mean that you no longer seek to get this merged?

   Will close after 2024-05-10 unless I hear otherwise.

9. 
   instagibbs commented at 9:15 pm on April 26, 2024: member

   @hugohn can open another if he understands it
10. instagibbs closed this on Apr 26, 2024

    ---

Contributors
instagibbs luke-jr hugohn murchandamus

Labels
Proposed BIP modification