Author: Christian Decker 2018-05-15 14:28:22
Published on: 2018-05-15T14:28:22+00:00
The discussion revolves around the use of `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` which is a powerful tool that must be used responsibly with the proper understanding of its risks. The proposal regarding it being minimal should help streamline the discussion and prevent other features from being added. It has been suggested that `SIGHASH_NONE` should either be limited or dropped from support for segwit v1 addresses. Additionally, there is a concern about signing with NOINPUT as opposed to signing with SIGHASH_NONE since it seems more likely that wallets will sign things with SIGHASH_NOINPUT when using Lightning v2. A separate opcode would have clean semantics, but it uses up NOP-codes. On the other hand, having a direct dependency on taproot, i.e., allowing noinput only in taproot scripts, isn't a done deal yet.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T01:50:51.710598+00:00