The main issue is the text seemed ambiguous on whether the limit applied per input, or over the total transaction summing over all inputs.
I added some language directly ripped from bip16, and made it clearer, I hope, that each field is evaluated separately.
cc @darosior
76 | -preceded by a minimally-pushed number between 1 and 16 (included) accounts for 20. If the 77 | -total is strictly higher than 2500, the transaction is invalid. 78 | +same as for [bip-0016][BIP16 specs], evaluating the scriptSig, scriptPubKey, and P2SH redeemScript 79 | +separately: 80 | + 81 | +1. OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY count as 1 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated.
1. `CHECKSIG` and `CHECKSIGVERIFY` count as 1 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated.
(Here and below)
In the rest of the document opcodes are referred to without the "OP_" prefix and are preformatted.
done, but left OP_1/OP_16 for clarity
77 | -total is strictly higher than 2500, the transaction is invalid. 78 | +same as for [bip-0016][BIP16 specs], evaluating the scriptSig, scriptPubKey, and P2SH redeemScript 79 | +separately: 80 | + 81 | +1. OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY count as 1 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated. 82 | +2. OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY immediately preceded by OP_1 through OP_16 are counted as 1 to 16 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated.
2. OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY immediately preceded by OP_1 through OP_16 are counted as 1 to 16 signature operations, whether or not they are evaluated.
Or maybe?
2. OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY immediately preceded by OP_1 through OP_16 are counted as 1 to 16 signature operation(s), whether or not they are evaluated.
first suggestion taken
80 | + 81 | +1. OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY count as 1 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated. 82 | +2. OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY immediately preceded by OP_1 through OP_16 are counted as 1 to 16 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated. 83 | +3. All other OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY are counted as 20 signature operations, whether or not they are evaluated. 84 | + 85 | +If the total summed over all transaction inputs is strictly higher than 2500, the transaction is invalid.
Could you put this sentence directly before the sentence "The accounting is the same as for ..." instead of in a new paragraph by itself?
It would read:
It applies to all transactions in the block except the coinbase transaction. For each input in the transaction, count the number of
CHECKSIGandCHECKMULTISIGin the input scriptSig and previous output's scriptPubKey, including the P2SH redeemScript. If the total summed over all transaction inputs is strictly higher than 2500, the transaction is invalid. The accounting is the same as for bip-0016, evaluating the scriptSig, scriptPubKey, and P2SH redeemScript separately:
- OP_CHECKSIG and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY count as 1 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated.
- OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY immediately preceded by OP_1 through OP_16 are counted as 1 to 16 signature operation, whether or not they are evaluated.
- All other OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY are counted as 20 signature operations, whether or not they are evaluated.
Which i find preferable.
done
Thanks, i agree the language could be clearer and your change improves it.
ACK 459298ab0e35f97072228f9984cd0b6973989895
Thanks!
ACK 459298ab0e35f97072228f9984cd0b6973989895