Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
BIP draft: Binary Output Descriptors #1548
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
BIP draft: Binary Output Descriptors #1548
Changes from 2 commits
c6521e4
f9eff32
5151e3f
e483f82
710fe83
c6c727c
36403be
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be beneficial if we could specify a list of output descriptors, not just one, for two reasons:
To achieve this, the global field could contain a list of all descriptors, and each input and output can reference one of them, e.g. by index.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Your comment seem to assume that this proposal expands signing PSBT with extra information.
As per #1548 (comment), the high-level issue blocking this proposal is whether to expand the PSBT format, or to create a new format (that happens to have similar structure). I don't think we can move forward without a decision either way.
FWIW, I lean towards separating the formats., given @achow101 et al insisting on PSBT being kept for signing use cases only (for good reasons).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indeed that was my assumption, apologies. I should have read the full BIP again before commenting.
I lean strongly towards extending the PSBT format instead of creating a new format.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
An error in which stage? It seems like this should still be optional. For example, for regular single-sig transactions (and even multisig if the global xpub field is populated), one can infer the descriptor.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The descriptor field is mandatory if we assume the format is separate from PSBT (albeit similar structure). See previous comment.