Multi-sig ScriptSig Support #143
Conversation
| An intermediate fix could be just: caedesvvv@9a3f52c Will test this changes and report back to see if it actually works, also will provide more data for test cases. |
| About the notation, *InputScript and *OutputScript give you a pretty good idea of what's going on, with the new notation I would have to think a bit to know which is which.. but maybe it's because i'm used, now there are more cases and also looks all right still not very idiomatic. Anyways for normal applications one is using the api in Transaction. |
| I guess |
| Rebased. |
| +1 |
4 participants
Depends on #140.
Resolves #137.
Related to #90.
The following pull request adds the following script templates to
Script:Script.createP2SHMultisigScriptSig,Script.createP2SHScriptSig, andScript.createMultisigScriptSigIt only adds a single test for
Script.createP2SHMultisigScriptSig, which is woeful, however it is none the less an improvement over the previous situation which had a broken implementation with no tests.I plan on adding more tests for each of these functions as soon as possible, but this is the intermediate fix that allows for
pay-to-scriptHashscriptSigs to be generated correctly.The function
Script.createMultiSigInputScriptwas renamed toScript.createP2SHMultisigScriptSig.The test
should create valid multi-sig addresswas removed because it was identical in coverage to the next testshould create valid redeemScript. This is because theredeemScriptis confirmed as valid if it matches the expectedcrypto.hash160(redeemScript).I'd be curious to hear opinions on whether the naming convention of
*ScriptSigand*ScriptPubKeyis more idiomatic than the current:*InputScriptand*OutputScript.I personally find the latter misleading, but that could just be my opinion.