Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP for deterministic pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses

[Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]


On 12/02/15 22:13, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> Where is the Specification section?? Does this support arbitrary scripts, or 
> only the simplest CHECKMULTISIG case?

The BIP is a process for deriving only the type of scripts you would
encounter doing addmultisigaddress. More complicated scripts would
require more metadata to be shared, but the only case we describe is
when given public keys and the number of signatures required.

You're right, we're missing a Specification. I have tweaked the document
to cover this now.



On 13/02/15 07:53, Peter Todd wrote:
> It might be enough to rewrite this BIP to basically say "all pubkeys
> executed by all CHECKMULTISIG opcodes will be in the following
> canonical order", followed by some explanatory examples of how to
> apply this simple rule. OTOH we don't yet have a standard way of even
> talking about arbitrary scripts, so it may very well turn out to be
> the case that the above rule is too restrictive in many cases - I
> certainly would not want to do a soft-fork to enforce this, or even
> make it an IsStandard() rule.

It would be interesting, but I agree it should not be brought into these
validation rules - just a convention for people to follow for now. I
think it's fair that implementers are free to order them however they
please. But I think there is good reason for wallets to opt in to the
convention and declare this, for ease of recovery, and for
interoperability reasons. 


-- 
Thomas Kerin
------------------------------------------------------------------------

My PGP key can be found here <http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3F0D2F83A2966155>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2356 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: 0xA2966155.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 5804 bytes --]