Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-05-02 📝 Original message:On Thu, 2 May 2019 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-05-02
📝 Original message:On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 16:28, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the answer, indeed for the redeem script and someone
> attempting a 0/1 of 3, good example
>
> So to summarize everything is standard as long as it matches P2PKH,
> P2SH, P2WPKH or P2WSH , the redeem scripts for the sha bounties are in
> op_return
Generally, all spends of P2SH/P2WSH is standard, with the following exceptions:
* Non-push operations in the scriptSig
* Resource limitations (too large scripts or items on the stack)
* Protections against known attack vectors (low s rule, cleanstack
rule, minimally encoded numbers rule, codesep usage, ...)
* Usage of unconditionally spendable constructions intended for future
extensions, such as spending future segwit versions.
Cheers,
--
Pieter
📝 Original message:On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 16:28, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the answer, indeed for the redeem script and someone
> attempting a 0/1 of 3, good example
>
> So to summarize everything is standard as long as it matches P2PKH,
> P2SH, P2WPKH or P2WSH , the redeem scripts for the sha bounties are in
> op_return
Generally, all spends of P2SH/P2WSH is standard, with the following exceptions:
* Non-push operations in the scriptSig
* Resource limitations (too large scripts or items on the stack)
* Protections against known attack vectors (low s rule, cleanstack
rule, minimally encoded numbers rule, codesep usage, ...)
* Usage of unconditionally spendable constructions intended for future
extensions, such as spending future segwit versions.
Cheers,
--
Pieter