The sentence regarding empty byte arrays being used to indicate an invalid ECDSA signature is confusing. I attempted to make it clearer. If I screwed it up or can make it even clearer, please let me know.
Thank you.
The sentence regarding empty byte arrays being used to indicate an invalid ECDSA signature is confusing. I attempted to make it clearer. If I screwed it up or can make it even clearer, please let me know.
Thank you.
The sentence regarding allowing empty byte arrays to indicate an invalid ECDSA signature is confusing. I attempted to make it clearer. If I screwed it up or can make it even clearer, please let me know.
Thank you.
Please open trivial, non change PR at trivial next from @theuni: https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/tree/trivial-next
@jonasschnelli This is the bips repo
Aii.. Ignore my comment then. Sorry.
Don't feel strongly about it but "the empty byte array" is strictly correct. There is only one possible empty byte array.
@laanwj - Sorry if my comment wasn't totally clear. I mentioned the empty byte array because that was, to me, the most unique phrase in the affected sentence. (Granted, I think "empty byte array" still sounds weird, but I won't rewrite that.) I've highlighted the differences below. In particular, "for with" is definitely a typo.
Original: "To provide a compact way to deliberately create an invalid signature for with OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIG the empty byte array (the result of OP_0) is also allowed."
Revision: "To provide a compact way to deliberately create an invalid signature for OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIG, an empty byte array (i.e., the result of OP_0) is also allowed."
ACK