Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA86FF82 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:16:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:00 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp65.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (smtp65.ord1d.emailsrvr.com [184.106.54.65]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98009710 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:16:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Auth-ID: peter@coinkite.com Received: by smtp17.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: peter-AT-coinkite.com) with ESMTPSA id A44EF2029E; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:07:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: peter@coinkite.com Received: from coinkite.com ([UNAVAILABLE]. [216.223.129.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:465 (trex/5.7.12); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:07:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:07:45 -0400 From: "Peter D. Gray" To: Jonathan Underwood Message-ID: <20190627150745.GA1897@coinkite.com> Reply-To: Peter Gray References: <20190627095031.4d5817b8@simplexum.com> <20190627122916.3b6c2c32@simplexum.com> <20190627134628.4d131264@simplexum.com> <20190627142120.2c24fddb@simplexum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Coinkite Cryptobank (www.coinkite.com) User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:20:11 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP174 extension proposal (Global Type: PSBT_GLOBAL_XPUB_SIGNATURE) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:16:48 -0000 I haven't studied the new proposal in depth, but my first impression is: Wouldn't it just be easier and better to just sign the entire "outputs" section of the PSBT? The signature would cover every byte, and therefore would cover any future BIP additions to the outputs area, and also help non-multisig cases today. --- Peter D. Gray || Founder, Coinkite || Twitter: @dochex || GPG: A3A31BAD 5A2A5B10