Author: ZmnSCPxj 2019-09-30 23:28:43
Published on: 2019-09-30T23:28:43+00:00
The email is proposing the creation of a new opcode, `OP_CHECKSIG_WITHOUT_INPUT`, which would be equivalent to `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` and could be embedded in a Taproot script. This new opcode would ignore any `SIGHASH` flags on a signature and instead hash the current transaction without input references before checking that hash against the signature. The proposed implementation would allow for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun with an internal Taproot point to be a 2-of-2 and then have a script `OP_1 OP_CHECKSIG_WITHOUT_INPUT`. If special scripts are already supportable by Taproot, why aren't we concerned about Taproot abuse? In closing, the author is questioning the lack of concern regarding Taproot abuse if there is such concern over `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` abuse.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T21:34:19.528819+00:00