Jonathan Underwood [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-07-23 📝 Original message:Hello All, I have made a ...

📅 Original date posted:2019-07-23
📝 Original message:Hello All,

I have made a pull request based on the discussion currently. Please move
discussion there.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/801

Thanks,
Jonathan

2019年6月29日(土) 17:11 Jonathan Underwood <junderwood at bitcoinbank.co.jp>:

> Even if the difference is apparent outside the signed data (in the
> output). Signing the data explicitly is more secure.
>
> ie. if some sort of vulnerability / way to break this system for 1-of-1
> multisig is found, someone who signed a single sig xpub whitelist will not
> be exposed.
>
> 2019年6月29日(土) 13:43 Dmitry Petukhov <dp at simplexum.com>:
>
>> В Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:19:41 +0900
>> Jonathan Underwood <junderwood at bitcoinbank.co.jp> пишет:
>>
>> > > Other note: you have 'unused' value of 1 for `m` in your scheme, why
>> > > not require m=1 for single-sig case, and use 0 as indicator that
>> > > there are a serlal number following it?
>> > >
>> >
>> > 0x00 is single sig, aka, OP_CHECKSIG
>> >
>> > 0x01 is multisig, aka, 1-of-3, 1-of-2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
>>
>> This informatin is available in per-output redeem/witness script,
>> signer will be able to distinguish between multisig/single-sig by
>> looking at this script. I think it only need to know the total number
>> of keys participating in the signing, and check that this number
>> matches the particulars of redeem/witness script.
>>
>
>

--
-----------------
Jonathan Underwood
ビットバンク社 チーフビットコインオフィサー
-----------------

暗号化したメッセージをお送りの方は下記の公開鍵をご利用下さい。

指紋: 0xCE5EA9476DE7D3E45EBC3FDAD998682F3590FEA3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190723/3a6f2496/attachment-0001.html>;