Author: matejcik 2018-06-26 15:33:14
Published on: 2018-06-26T15:33:14+00:00
A colleague agrees with the proposed changes but notes minor issues with a broken test vector, an outdated signing vector, and unspecified BIP32 derivation fields. They also argue against the key-value model due to concerns about human readability and suggest using protobuf instead, stating that BIP174 is basically protobuf as it stands. The author performed an experiment comparing protobuf to other variants of the BIP174 format and found that protobuf is slightly smaller than key-value and roughly equal to record-set. There are technical points to consider when using protobuf, such as structuring the message as a single "PSBT" type and declaring that all fields must be length-delimited to implement sighash as a separate message type with one field. Non-protobuf consumers would need to understand both protobuf varint and bitcoin compact uint.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T03:19:29.185658+00:00