Author: Tom Zander 2016-11-21 20:28:51
Published on: 2016-11-21T20:28:51+00:00
In a message dated 21 November 2016, Russell O'Connor expressed concern over Tom's proposal to change the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG in version 2 of 'script', stating that it was too naive. Tom had previously explained that OP_CHECKSIG validates a signature and that in version 2, the data signed would be equivalent to the transaction-id, which would simplify the process. However, Tom responded to Russell's email saying that the issue had already been fixed and thanked him for reviewing the proposal after a six-week wait. Tom also provided links to his blog and vlog.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T20:39:39.076946+00:00