Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 887D11DD0 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 01:46:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40130.protonmail.ch (mail-40130.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.130]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EFE4711 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 01:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 01:46:35 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1556502402; bh=XcGHKvXYWUEe6KweE2clLRNZDcCebSZp4I8g6bCsuAc=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID: From; b=eLXKIb8corrdSB26vUwuU30KPGFatvb3LqyF3PctV9/1hqRkWygNUva7jqZ2TGotg detPwC+Wtr28crnJyXcibg0f/MXAhWoCbvkz9MmBG+nkKb1LaOSwW7x0zyKsXLcUPf XjiQBYbis8TlKhq17l1aHX8g4U5e/qIUYjq2DFYg= To: Aymeric Vitte , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <21346b3c-dad5-c666-9234-8916aa5a56e4@gmail.com> References: <21346b3c-dad5-c666-9234-8916aa5a56e4@gmail.com> Feedback-ID: el4j0RWPRERue64lIQeq9Y2FP-mdB86tFqjmrJyEPR9VAtMovPEo9tvgA0CrTsSHJeeyPXqnoAu6DN-R04uJUg==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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, 02 May 2019 23:19:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] IsStandard 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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 01:46:45 -0000 Good morning Aymeric, Different versions may consider different output scripts standard. Your rule of thumb, post-SegWit, should be: * If not P2PKH or P2WPKH, then wrap it in a P2SH or P2WSH. There are more standard outputs accepted, but you can be reasonably sure th= at P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH, and P2WSH are the only standard output scripts that= are likely to remain supported in the mid-future (5->10 years from 2019). Lightning uses P2WSH for its scripts. Any m-of-n signing scheme in Bitcoin is P2SH (usually) or P2WSH (if you are= cool). Regards, ZmnSCPxj Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me= ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 On Saturday, April 27, 2019 6:37 PM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Maybe trivial question but asking here because I can't find anything > clear (or updated) about it: is somewhere explained in details what txs > are considered standard and non standard today without having to read > the core code? > > For example, modification of multisig 2 of 3: > > scriptSig: > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OP_0 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OP_PUSHDATA sign1 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OP_PUSHDATA sign2 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OP_2 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OP_PUSHDATA OP_3 OP_CHECKM= ULTISIG > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > scriptPubKey: > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 OP_HASH160 hash160( OP_3 > OP_CHECKMULTISIG) OP_EQUAL > > Is this standard? Are lightning txs standards ? etc > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev