BIP112: fix example #427

pull jl2012 wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from jl2012:patch-27 changing 1 files +2 −2

jl2012 commented at 9:12 AM on July 27, 2016: contributor

CHECK(MULTI)SIG should be used.
BIP112: fix example 1402ca99cb
luke-jr commented at 5:04 PM on July 27, 2016: member

@btcdrak @maaku @CodeShark
luke-jr commented at 5:04 PM on July 27, 2016: member

Personally, I think it's preferable to use the VERIFY...
luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jul 27, 2016
jl2012 commented at 5:36 PM on July 27, 2016: contributor

@luke-jr , technically you could do that, which requires an extra push in scriptSig
luke-jr commented at 6:08 PM on July 27, 2016: member

Why would it need an extra push? AFAIK, OP_CHECK[MULTI]SIGVERIFY behaves exactly as OP_CHECK[MULTI]SIG except that the VERIFY variant short-circuits script execution immediately.
jl2012 commented at 6:44 PM on July 27, 2016: contributor

Without an extra push the stack will be empty after evaluation, which is invalid
petertodd commented at 10:28 PM on August 18, 2016: contributor

@luke-jr The easiest way to convince us would be to make such a transaction on mainnet and show that it works. :)

edit: ah! now I see that @luke-jr was the thumbs-up emoji thing!
petertodd commented at 10:31 PM on August 18, 2016: contributor

utACK

Though I'd suggest jl2012 take my advice. :)
btcdrak commented at 10:52 PM on August 18, 2016: contributor

ACK
luke-jr merged this on Sep 2, 2016
luke-jr closed this on Sep 2, 2016

Contributors

Labels