Author: Joost Jager 2023-06-20 12:50:47+00:00
Published on: 2023-06-20T12:50:47+00:00
In an email exchange between Antoine Riard and Joost, they discuss the concept of an opt-in annex in multi-party transactions. Antoine seeks clarification on whether a transaction would be rejected if it doesn't include a minimal annex with a 0x50 tag. Joost clarifies that the requirement is not to reject transactions without an annex, but rather to ensure consistency among all inputs. In other words, either none of the inputs have an annex or all of them have one.The purpose of this approach is to prevent surprises within multi-party transactions. If someone doesn't commit to an annex, they can be confident that no version of the transaction will appear where another signer includes a potentially large annex. This ensures that existing multi-party protocols remain unaffected.For future protocols that rely on the annex, everyone involved would need to opt-in by committing to an annex. The annex can be empty, serving only as a signal of opting in. The goal is to maintain transparency and avoid unexpected variations in transaction versions.Overall, the discussions revolve around implementing an opt-in annex system for multi-party transactions, ensuring consistency and avoiding surprises among signers. This approach aims to protect the integrity of existing protocols while allowing for future enhancements through opt-in commitments. The use of an annex, even if empty, serves as a clear indication of participation in these protocols.
Updated on: 2023-07-14T02:44:04.541478+00:00