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.
update bip0129 to reduce ambiguity #1188
pull instagibbs wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from instagibbs:patch-14 changing 1 files +1 −1-
instagibbs commented at 6:46 AM on September 23, 2021: member
-
b0c471d658
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.
-
- luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Nov 4, 2021
-
hugohn commented at 12:23 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.
-
murchandamus commented at 7:51 PM on April 26, 2024: contributor
@hugohn, @instagibbs: Could you perhaps clarify the status of this PR?
-
instagibbs commented at 7:53 PM on April 26, 2024: member
I don't remember this :)
-
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.
-
instagibbs commented at 9:15 PM on April 26, 2024: member
@hugohn can open another if he understands it
- instagibbs closed this on Apr 26, 2024
Contributors