Implement OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY) #29270
Conversation
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code Coverage & BenchmarksFor details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/29270. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
|
Concept ACK! |
998489a to
9ddaa2c
Compare
Some code and ideas from Elements by stevenroose, and sanket1729 Porting help from moonsettler Tests added to the transaction tests framework.
9ddaa2c to
b49c232
Compare
|
Closing for now, given #29198 was closed. |
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
| return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_PUBKEYTYPE); | ||
| } else if (pubkey_in.size() == 32) { | ||
| if (!success) return true; | ||
| if (sig.size() != 64) return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_SCHNORR_SIG_SIZE); |
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is nothing wrong with named constants when a value is reused a lot and can change in the future. But they don't really make the code more readeable in most cases.
|
@reardencode It's no-longer possible to re-open: You'll need to open a new PR. |
|
@reardencode could you start by getting it merged and deployed on inquisition first? I'm not sure how another PR to Core for this would be useful at this point. |
This pull request forks from #29198 and includes only OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK(VERIFY) and their tests.