Skip to content

Conversation

@tmpolaczyk
Copy link
Contributor

@tmpolaczyk tmpolaczyk commented Aug 10, 2022

Not ready

Close #84

Copy link
Member

@aesedepece aesedepece left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll be happy to help with the rationale part.

@tmpolaczyk
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll be happy to help with the rationale part.

Yes, please! Or any other part as well.


Full support for script inputs and script outputs, this is the intented way to use scripts.

When validating a `ValueTransferTransaction`, for each input, if that input has a `redeem_script`, do a script validation. Otherwise, if the input does not have a `redeem_script`, do a normal signature validation. Transactions can combine both script inputs and normal inputs. Script validation is described in the "Script execution" section.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

could it be possible for an input to have a redeem_script but no witness_script ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, for example if the redeem_script always returns true. But since the witness_script contains the signatures this would make the input spendable by anyone, so it is basically a donation to the miner.

@aesedepece
Copy link
Member

I'll be happy to help with the rationale part.

A draft for the motivation section can be found here:
https://github.com/aesedepece/WIPs/blob/scripting/wip-scripting.md

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.

WIP on scripting

3 participants