Part of effort to add new CHECKMULTISIG mode.
Depends on D3417
Details
Details
- Reviewers
deadalnix Mengerian - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Maniphest Tasks
- T528: Add Schnorr support to OP_CHECKMULTISIG (new mechanics)
- Commits
- rSTAGING0d9eba69f419: add new encoding checker for Schnorr sigs
rABC0d9eba69f419: add new encoding checker for Schnorr sigs
make check
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rABC Bitcoin ABC
- Branch
- schnorrenconly
- Lint
Lint Passed - Unit
No Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 6224 Build 10495: Bitcoin ABC Buildbot (legacy) Build 10494: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
| src/script/script_error.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 88 | And the comment something like: "Signature must be validly encoded Schnorr, or null, in this operation". It's not really checking for ECDSA, but that it's a validly encoded Schnorr. | |
| src/script/script_error.h | ||
| 66 | I think it would be better to call it something like "SCRIPT_ERR_SIG_BADSCHNORR". | |
| src/script/script_error.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 88 | Good points | |
| src/script/sigencoding.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 183 ↗ | (On Diff #9274) | The fact you duplicated logic is a tell the design isn't quite right. |
| src/script/sigencoding.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 56 ↗ | (On Diff #9676) | authentify -> authenticate |
| src/script/sigencoding.h | ||
|---|---|---|
| 56 ↗ | (On Diff #9676) | I'm copying the previous comments here, will open another diff to fix them up. :-) |