ZmnSCPxj [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-04-28 📝 Original message:Good morning Aymeric, ...

📅 Original date posted:2019-04-28
📝 Original message:Good morning Aymeric,

Different versions may consider different output scripts standard.

Your rule of thumb, post-SegWit, should be:

* If not P2PKH or P2WPKH, then wrap it in a P2SH or P2WSH.

There are more standard outputs accepted, but you can be reasonably sure that P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH, and P2WSH are the only standard output scripts that are likely to remain supported in the mid-future (5->10 years from 2019).

Lightning uses P2WSH for its scripts.

Any m-of-n signing scheme in Bitcoin is P2SH (usually) or P2WSH (if you are cool).


Regards,
ZmnSCPxj




Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, April 27, 2019 6:37 PM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Maybe trivial question but asking here because I can't find anything
> clear (or updated) about it: is somewhere explained in details what txs
> are considered standard and non standard today without having to read
> the core code?
>
> For example, modification of multisig 2 of 3:
>
> scriptSig:
>     OP_0
>     OP_PUSHDATA sign1
>     OP_PUSHDATA sign2
>     OP_2
>     OP_PUSHDATA <pubkey1><pubkey2><pubkey3> OP_3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
>    
> scriptPubKey:
>     OP_HASH160 hash160(<pubkey1><pubkey2><pubkey3> OP_3
> OP_CHECKMULTISIG) OP_EQUAL
>
> Is this standard? Are lightning txs standards ? etc
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev