Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes: > Here is a combined proposal: > * Three new sighash flags are added: SIGHASH_NOINPUT, SIGHASH_NOFEE, > and SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK. > * A new opcode OP_MASK is added, which acts as a NOP during execution. > * The sighash is computed like in BIP143, but: > * If SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK is present, for every OP_MASK in scriptCode > the subsequent opcode/push is removed.
I'm asking on-list because I'm sure I'm not the only confused one. Having the SIGHASH_SCRIPTMASK flag is redundant AFAICT: why not always perform mask-removal for signing? If you're signing arbitrary scripts, you're surely in trouble already? And I am struggling to understand the role of scriptmask in a taproot world, where the alternate script is both hidden and general? I look forward to learning what I missed! Rusty. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
