From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AACC000A for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:35:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC9C40214 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:35:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mdRdv3JVolf6 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:35:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4E3401F9 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:35:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id nh5so3002531pjb.5 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qDAWKMds9d7aVA7PR/ggA4fxiUdWU5ooDzR58tKS048=; b=qDWadg4u2S+hJUlpNwkwjhoPmFGYLd9QohtfsQRWHFWs4kv/EN7TtBI5F4xfDMfvnE BG0Ps6874xaC7wpJ4PpwwNSg47LkGQ+vPVB++v5Ovc0jQj5RHXIqdqhdivpfD5ueDB/S ySqMXd1ecmMIsrdfFXsotB/afj/VQmvQNyQAuf/RhsAIQlcCIw6k7nJsWehzU/V5PkSX iDFhtSnCelI7UB7Og+MJs5Lgmm/4jQznRMMGLWdTsTVRTQ2u9+lEIBuYQa6xNtX2VcEa JovdwDYQHjMLOH6IskJdF3L3L0j+3mNmE3fjr9R7ZBp+L1RXcvdHI8ijy35O5g8nH7q8 KH7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=qDAWKMds9d7aVA7PR/ggA4fxiUdWU5ooDzR58tKS048=; b=rQmkNVCF213UffL1xxmKKuGCmFCaqrgJhoDFJfLPaVoJGFOVfQl11jSgnfRz2L/5YI ZFmMQ+Ye+JnLgC40KHly81EZL4b0d3FH4bXJ+gzTmYZ7FpYqeHwSKOUlEykyGnbFXBOL KHfMXcMypPREMGJW3savBqH9giaq6oUqjthBqGAmfSmE5tfTGtWwkFMLBcR50kKskYh4 u4ol8LhQhQvwdOj220q6rV2OJkMQd8H6GAoeJjYddJaZGHnfJMXZwDofI/1pY+OtkAp0 NL50ZWkTv8Con5WCEFjraTgwSTpk03odGvrAF+sXb4jORD3nSZAoueQa0pc1OgCqqWuf ynRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532HPWQwymNPUwpHjSSesFVSPScjaWlCxD0CfqvWIfrThPPU+ewn dzZjq3SPRdpg8V8ZTbXhqKscWtt/nXiPWkTB1CFPAEoUYSe7Gw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxNglyiFizo7nCP9wKIKJ4ZzuzjnNcdSxASj4KSb6o19dmGeIYUEJuEjmBus8IAQ5skqx4kQ4HnZAa40pEplWQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:aa11:: with SMTP id k17mr12739307pjq.60.1617582942064; Sun, 04 Apr 2021 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1dd8c285-e3f4-4f03-d608-103a5026146d@achow101.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lloyd Fournier Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 10:35:14 +1000 Message-ID: To: Andrew Chow , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8137d05bf2ee07d" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 21:47:48 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:35:44 -0000 --000000000000a8137d05bf2ee07d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 11:20, Lloyd Fournier wrote: > Hi Andrew & all, > > I've been working with PSBTs for a little while now. FWIW I agree with the > change of removing the global tx and having the input/output data stored > together in the new unified structures. > > One thing I've been wondering about is how output descriptors could fit > into PSBTs. They are useful since they allow you to determine the maximum > satisfaction weight for inputs so you can properly align fees as things get > added. I haven't seen any discussion about including them in this revision. > Is it simply a matter of time before they make it into a subsequent PSBT > spec or is there something I'm missing conceptually? > Sipa replied to me off list some time ago and explained what I was missing. PSBTs have all the information you could want from a descriptor already. For example the maximum satisfaction weight can be determined from the witness/redeem script (I had forgot these fields existed). Therefore descriptors are more useful in higher level applications while PSBTs are useful for communicating with signing devices. Therefore there is no reason for PSBTs to support descriptors. LL --000000000000a8137d05bf2ee07d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 11:20, Lloyd F= ournier <lloyd.fourn@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
<= div dir=3D"ltr">
Hi Andrew & all,

I've= been working with PSBTs for a little while now. FWIW I agree with the chan= ge of removing the global tx and having the input/output data stored togeth= er in the new unified structures.

One thing I'= ve been wondering about is how output descriptors could fit into PSBTs. The= y are useful since they allow you to determine the maximum satisfaction wei= ght for inputs so you can properly align fees as things get added. I haven&= #39;t seen any discussion about including them in this revision. Is it simp= ly a matter of time before they make it into a subsequent PSBT spec or is t= here something I'm missing conceptually?




--000000000000a8137d05bf2ee07d--