On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 07:17:52PM -0500, Chris Stewart via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Do you have any thoughts on expanding this to SIGHASH_NONE? Perhaps someone > else on the dev list can enlighten me, but is there a current use case for > SIGHASH_NONE that would suffer from it being non standard?
SIGHASH_NONE is important as it's the only way that a multisig signers can relinquish the need for them to sign without giving up the private key. FWIW the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug can be used in similar ways too. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
