Repository navigation
Conversation
|
@fametrano Thank you for your contribution. Out of personal curiosity, what AI did you use to make 228 GitHub contributions (so far) today? The PR description is a little hard to grok, can you summarize more concisely in your own words, please? |
|
@jonatack in my own words: On the tooling question: Claude Code, driven by me. The measurements are run locally and I review every text before it is posted; most of that day's contributions were in my own btclib-org repositories, where BIP375 was being implemented. Point taken on the descriptions, I will keep them shorter. |
ad10d55 to
f0dee63
Compare
8bb12e8 to
d6e0215
Compare
|
|
||
| Silent payment capable PSBTs can be uniquely identified the same way as PSBTv2s, except when including silent payment outputs. If an output contains the PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO field, it must use that field instead of PSBT_OUT_SCRIPT as the output script when creating the unsigned transaction used for unique identification.<ref name="why_use_sp_info_field"> ''' Why use PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO when serializing for a unique identifier?''' Since the same silent payment capable PSBT is valid whether or not a PSBT_OUT_SCRIPT is included in an output that has PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO set, using the PSBT_OUT_SCRIPT if present for the unique identifier will cause malleability. The identifier will be different depending on whether PSBT_OUT_SCRIPT is present, so always using PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO if it exists makes sure the PSBT is always identified uniquely.</ref> | ||
| The PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO should be serialized as a zero byte for the version, followed by the 33 bytes of the scan key and then 33 bytes for the spend key. | ||
| In that unsigned transaction, the output script of such an output is a zero byte for the version, followed by the 33 bytes of the scan key and then 33 bytes for the spend key; the PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO field itself is the two keys, without the version byte. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO field itself is the two keys, without the version byte.
I don't think it is necessary to specify this again, it's already specified elsewhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, dropped it: the sentence now ends at the spend key.
murchandamus
added
the
Fixups
4c59962 to
2c53597
Compare
…field "The PSBT_OUT_SP_V0_INFO should be serialized as a zero byte for the version, followed by the 33 bytes of the scan key and then 33 bytes for the spend key" names the field, and the field is 66 bytes: its table entry is "<33 byte scan key> <33 byte spend key>", the test vectors carry 66, and the validator refuses anything else. The sentence is in the Unique Identification section and was added with it, so what it describes is the output script that stands in for a silent payment output when building the unsigned transaction that identifies the psbt -- 67 bytes there, and nothing about the field. Read as the field's own serialization it contradicts the table, which is how it first read here. Only the wording changes.
2c53597 to
ce77b5c
Compare
4 participants
One sentence, in the Unique Identification section:
It names the field, and the field is 66 bytes: its table entry is
<33 byte scan key> <33 byte spend key>,bip375_test_vectors.jsoncarries66, and
validator/validate_psbt.pyrefuses anything else —invalid[1]reports "Output 0 SP_V0_INFO has wrong length (65 bytes, expected 66)".
Read in its section the sentence is not about the field but about the output
script that stands in for a silent payment output when building the unsigned
transaction used for unique identification, where 67 bytes contradicts
nothing. That is also where it came from:
d29e2f8added it together withthe unique-identification paragraph above it.
Both readings are available to someone reading the sentence alone, and one of
them contradicts three other artefacts. This picks the one that does not,
without changing anything normative.
No changelog entry or version bump: nothing about the format changes, and
leaving them out keeps this from conflicting with
#2207 or
#2256, both of which touch the
changelog. Glad to add both if you would rather have them.
scripts/link-format-chk.sh,scripts/buildtable.pl,scripts/diffcheck.shandtypospass locally.Noticed while implementing BIP375 in btclib, which serializes the version
byte in the identifier and not in the field:
btclib-org/btclib#768
Made with my usual tools: a computer, the Internet and an LLM. The mistakes, as usual, are all mine.