|
Title: Do we need SIGHASH_MULTIPLE for some advance contract? Post by: jl2012 on July 09, 2013, 04:25:22 PM Currently, we have SIGHASH_ALL (sign all outputs, the default), SIGHASH_NONE (sign none of the outputs) and, SIGHASH_SINGLE (sign one of the outputs). However, it seems there is no mechanism for user to sign more than one, but not all outputs. For some advanced contracts, one may want to specify multiple but not all outputs. Do we need a SIGHASH_MULTIPLE for this, or could we accomplish this with current code?
Title: Re: Do we need SIGHASH_MULTIPLE for some advance contract? Post by: gmaxwell on July 09, 2013, 04:29:39 PM It seems weird, but I've never been able to come up with a case that couldn't be handled by the current flags plus some small number of preparatory transactions. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can come up with one.
Title: Re: Do we need SIGHASH_MULTIPLE for some advance contract? Post by: jl2012 on July 09, 2013, 04:35:56 PM It seems weird, but I've never been able to come up with a case that couldn't be handled by the current flags plus some small number of preparatory transactions. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone can come up with one. Do you mean using multiple SIGHASH_ONE inupts? Title: Re: Do we need SIGHASH_MULTIPLE for some advance contract? Post by: Mike Hearn on July 09, 2013, 05:52:04 PM I think you would just have multiple inputs owned by yourself and use SIGHASH_SINGLE. But Gregory is right. I never found a use case for that either (nor most of the script opcodes).
Title: Re: Do we need SIGHASH_MULTIPLE for some advance contract? Post by: jackjack on July 09, 2013, 09:28:40 PM I proposed it too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=212555.0
|