On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Luke Dashjr <l...@dashjr.org> wrote: > Not necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as > be impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are > available. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession > of funds, only that you receive funds.
By saying "not necessarily specific UTXOs", are you saying it may be spent outputs? I'm a little confused I think. On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Jim Posen <jim.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > In this general signing-a-script context, I think a verifier might want to > see the time conditions under which it may be spent. The proof container > could include an optional nLockTime which defaults to 0 and nSequence which > defaults to 0xFFFF... Good point! >> I think it would just use the default (SIGHASH_ALL?) for simplicity. >> Is there a good reason to tweak it? > > I took another look and there should definitely be a byte appended to the > end of the sig so that the encoding checks pass, but I think it might as > well be a 0x00 byte since it's not actually a sighash flag. I think the sighash flag affects the outcome of the actual verification, but I could be mistaken. -Kalle. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
