Thanks for the answer Ishmael. However, that is not exactly the answer that I was looking for. I guess that my question was not deep enough and not properly asked. I'll rephrase:
In a common ScriptPubKey to pay a single recipient, we use the bitcoin address (hash of the public key): scriptPubKey: OP_HASH160 <scriptHash> OP_EQUAL However, in a multisig (what I guess that createMultiSigOutputScript creates), the Script requires the public keys: script: OP_m <pubKey1> ... OP_n OP_CHECKMULTISIG Since I guess that there is no way to do a multisig with bitcoin addresses instead of public keys, then my question is: why was this created like that?, instead of being more consistent and using addresses like in the scriptPubKey? Kind regards, V On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 8:19:51 PM UTC+1, Ishmael Riles wrote: > > The multisig script is created from the public keys. An address is a hash > of the public key, the hash goes only one way so you can not derive the > public key from the address. > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 6:44:25 AM UTC-8, vg-coder wrote: >> >> Hi all! >> >> I am testing some easy smart contracts and I got a doubt. Why do we need >> the ECKey in createMultiSigOutputScript instead of using Address? >> Is there no way to achieve the same with the addresses instead of using >> keys?, since normally, between two parties, we interchange addresses not >> public keys. >> >> Kind regards, >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bitcoinj" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoinj+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
