Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enable various p2sh-p2wpkh functionality #11089

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
9 participants
Member

luke-jr commented Aug 18, 2017

A subset of #9017

src/base58.cpp
+ if (!IsValid() || vchVersion != Params().Base58Prefix(CChainParams::SCRIPT_ADDRESS)) {
+ return false;
+ }
+ memcpy(scriptID.begin(), &vchData[0], 20);
@MeshCollider

MeshCollider Aug 19, 2017

Member

Prefer vchData.data() over &vchData[0]

Member

MeshCollider commented Aug 19, 2017

utACK 7fb9887

@fanquake fanquake added the Wallet label Aug 20, 2017

Member

instagibbs commented Aug 21, 2017

utACK 8f6765a

@@ -281,6 +281,15 @@ bool CBitcoinAddress::GetKeyID(CKeyID& keyID) const
return true;
}
+bool CBitcoinAddress::GetScriptID(CScriptID& scriptID) const
+{
+ if (!IsValid() || vchVersion != Params().Base58Prefix(CChainParams::SCRIPT_ADDRESS)) {
@jimpo

jimpo Aug 23, 2017

Contributor

nit: Use if (!IsScript())

@laanwj laanwj added this to the 0.15.1 milestone Aug 23, 2017

Owner

laanwj commented Aug 23, 2017

Added 0.15.1 milestone

Member

luke-jr commented Aug 23, 2017

IMO it's a 0.16 thing. IMO segwit-interim-release ought to have been called 0.16, but apparently it's 0.15.1. I don't mind in that case.

Member

instagibbs commented Sep 7, 2017

needs rebase

@laanwj laanwj added this to Blockers in High-priority for review Sep 14, 2017

Owner

sipa commented Sep 24, 2017

This needs a rebase after CBitcoinAddress was removed in #11117. However, this will become much easier after #11167, as then native witness destinations can be used.

Also, I'm not convinced that dumpprivkey for (p2sh or not) segwit addresses is the right approach, as you can't expect importprivkey to work for those.

@sipa sipa referenced this pull request Sep 26, 2017

Open

SegWit wallet support #11403

@laanwj laanwj removed this from Blockers in High-priority for review Sep 28, 2017

Member

MarcoFalke commented Oct 4, 2017

Needs rebase

Contributor

promag commented Oct 17, 2017

Either close (because it's in #11403) or rebase?

@MarcoFalke MarcoFalke removed this from the 0.15.2 milestone Nov 9, 2017

Member

MarcoFalke commented Nov 9, 2017

Removing from backport

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment