Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 11:20, Lloyd Fournier wrote: > Hi Andrew & all, > > I've been working with PSBTs for a little while now. FWIW I agree with the > change of removing the global tx and having the input/output data stored > together in the new unified structures. > > One thing I've been

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi Andrew & all, I've been working with PSBTs for a little while now. FWIW I agree with the change of removing the global tx and having the input/output data stored together in the new unified structures. One thing I've been wondering about is how output descriptors could fit into PSBTs. They

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

While working on the reference implementation for this, it occurred to me that the Inputs Modifiable flag needs to be more than just a boolean. If there are existing signatures in the PSBT, then any added inputs cannot change the transaction's locktime as all signatures, regardless of sighash

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi All, I've made some reorganization changes to the way that new PSBT versions should be handled in BIP 174 (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1055) so PSBTv2 will be submitted as a separate BIP. The full document can be read at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

On 1/7/21 7:40 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > Andrew Chow writes: >> Hi Rusty, >> >> On 1/6/21 6:26 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: >>> Hi Andrew et al, >>> >>> Very excited to see this progress; thanks for doing all the >>> work! Sorry for the delayed feedback, I didn't get to this before the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Andrew Chow writes: > Hi Rusty, > > On 1/6/21 6:26 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: >> Hi Andrew et al, >> >> Very excited to see this progress; thanks for doing all the >> work! Sorry for the delayed feedback, I didn't get to this before the >> break. >> >>> Additionally, I would like to add a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi Rusty, On 1/6/21 6:26 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > Hi Andrew et al, > > Very excited to see this progress; thanks for doing all the > work! Sorry for the delayed feedback, I didn't get to this before the > break. > >> Additionally, I would like to add a new global field: >> *

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi Andrew et al, Very excited to see this progress; thanks for doing all the work! Sorry for the delayed feedback, I didn't get to this before the break. > Additionally, I would like to add a new global field: > * PSBT_GLOBAL_UNDER_CONSTRUCTION = 0x05 >   * Key: empty >   * Value: A

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

One thing I think should be added in V2 is the ability to specify sighash flags per-key as opposed to per-input. The per-key restriction is unfitting given that there are circumstances where multisig signers may validate heterogenous logic. -- @JeremyRubin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi All, The full modified BIP can be read at https://github.com/achow101/bips/blob/psbt2/bip-0174.mediawiki. I will open a PR to the BIPs repo soon after further discussion on this. Andrew On 12/22/20 3:12 PM, Andrew Chow wrote: > Hi All, > > I have some updates on this after speaking with

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi, On 12/22/20 10:30 PM, fiatjaf wrote: > Hi Andrew. > > I'm just a lurker here and I have not much experience with PSBTs, but still > let me pose this very obvious question and concern: isn't this change going > to create a compatibility nightmare, with some software supporting version 1, >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:30:20AM -0300, fiatjaf via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi Andrew. > > I'm just a lurker here and I have not much experience with PSBTs, but still > let me pose this very obvious question and concern: isn't this change going > to create a compatibility nightmare, with some

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi Andrew. I'm just a lurker here and I have not much experience with PSBTs, but still let me pose this very obvious question and concern: isn't this change going to create a compatibility nightmare, with some software supporting version 1, others supporting version 2, and the ones that care

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

Hi All, I have some updates on this after speaking with some people off-list. Firstly, the version number will be set to 2. In most discussions, this proposal was being referred to as PSBT version 2, so it'll be easier and clearer to set the version number to 2. For lock times, instead of a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 10:25:37PM +, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to propose a new PSBT version that addresses a few > deficiencies in the current PSBT v0. As this will be backwards > incompatible, a new PSBT version will be used, v1. > > The primary

Re: [bitcoin-dev] New PSBT version proposal

> > The primary change is to truly have all input and output data for each in > their respective maps 1) +1. It would be really great to have a complete map per input/output that does not require an annoying lookup to a global field. A Bitcoin transaction only has a single locktime yet a PSBT