Skip to content

Use key path spend terminology more consistently in taproot/tapscript#56

Merged
sipa merged 1 commit intosipa:bip-schnorrfrom
jonasnick:keypath
Aug 22, 2019
Merged

Use key path spend terminology more consistently in taproot/tapscript#56
sipa merged 1 commit intosipa:bip-schnorrfrom
jonasnick:keypath

Conversation

@jonasnick
Copy link
Copy Markdown

sign_internal_key is a always a bit confusing because you actually sign for the output key (but you're using the internal privkey).

Comment thread bip-tapscript.mediawiki Outdated
The rules below only apply when validating a transaction input for which all of the conditions below are true:
* The transaction output is a '''segregated witness spend''' (i.e., either the scriptPubKey or BIP16 redeemScript is a witness program as defined in BIP141).
* It is a '''taproot spend''' as defined in bip-taproot (i.e., the witness version is 1, the witness program is 33 bytes, and the first of those is 0x00 or 0x01).
* It is a '''key path spend''' as defined in bip-taproot (i.e., the witness version is 1, the witness program is 33 bytes, and the first of those is 0x00 or 0x01).
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is not correct; it's about any kind of Taproot spend, not just key paths.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops, fixed

@sipa
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

sipa commented Aug 20, 2019

ACK apart from #56 (comment)

@sipa
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

sipa commented Aug 21, 2019

Needs rebase.

@jonasnick
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

rebased

@jonasnick
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

rebased

@sipa sipa merged commit de990a1 into sipa:bip-schnorr Aug 22, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants