Talk:OP CHECKSIG - Revision history

Taras at 15:46, 19 July 2015

2015-07-19T15:46:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 19 July 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject\|Protocol\|importance=TOP\|quality=GA}}		{{WikiProject\|Protocol\|importance=TOP\|quality=B}}
	=Redundant step?=		=Redundant step?=

2015-07-07T23:30:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:30, 7 July 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject\|Protocol\|importance=TOP\|quality=GA}}
	=Redundant step?=		=Redundant step?=

2014-08-10T04:21:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, 10 August 2014
Line 15:		Line 15:
	// or an extra one at the end, this prevents all those possible incompatibilities.		// or an extra one at the end, this prevents all those possible incompatibilities.
	In step 2, only OP_CODESEPARATOR before OP_CHECKSIG are removed. In step OP_CODESEPARATOR after OP_CHECKSIG are also removed.		In step 2, only OP_CODESEPARATOR before OP_CHECKSIG are removed. In step OP_CODESEPARATOR after OP_CHECKSIG are also removed.

			==Update with OP_RETURN==
			I'm searching a schema like the one from jenjix but updated with the OP_RETURN code, anyone can updare the page to add this new feature information in the raw transaction explanation? I also see that for now doesn't exist either a page on the OP_RETURN on this wiki... [[User:Pietrod21\|Pietrod]]

2012-08-04T18:16:04Z

Code samples and raw dumps

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 4 August 2012
Line 39:		Line 39:
	http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16		http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16
	--[[User:ThePiachu\|ThePiachu]] 22:46, 21 March 2012 (GMT)		--[[User:ThePiachu\|ThePiachu]] 22:46, 21 March 2012 (GMT)

			:Indeed, I had noticed the same problem. I have fixed the example.
			:[[User:OneEyed\|OneEyed]] ([[User talk:OneEyed\|talk]]) 18:16, 4 August 2012 (GMT)

2012-03-21T22:46:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 21 March 2012
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Maybe add short description from here [[Contracts#Theory]] for all SIGHASH_*? [[User:Mad\|Mad]]		Maybe add short description from here [[Contracts#Theory]] for all SIGHASH_*? [[User:Mad\|Mad]]

			= Code samples and raw dumps =

			I think there is some error in the section "Code samples and raw dumps" - The input script is:

			"04 11 db 93 e1 dc db 8a
			01 6b 49 84 0f 8c 53 bc
			1e b6 8a 38 2e 97 b1 48
			2e ca d7 b1 48 a6 90 9a
			5c b2 e0 ea dd fb 84 cc
			f9 74 44 64 f8 2e 16 0b
			fa 9b 8b 64 f9 d4 c0 3f
			99 9b 86 43 f6 56 b4 12
			a3
			ac"

			and should probably be "304402204e45e16932b8af514961a1d3a1a25fdf3f4f7732e9d624c6c61548ab5fb8cd410220181522ec8eca07de4860a4acdd12909d831cc56cbbac4622082221a8768d1d0901", at least according to the Block Explorer:
			http://blockexplorer.com/rawtx/f4184fc596403b9d638783cf57adfe4c75c605f6356fbc91338530e9831e9e16
			--[[User:ThePiachu\|ThePiachu]] 22:46, 21 March 2012 (GMT)

2012-02-07T23:55:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 7 February 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	// or an extra one at the end, this prevents all those possible incompatibilities.		// or an extra one at the end, this prevents all those possible incompatibilities.
	In step 2, only OP_CODESEPARATOR before OP_CHECKSIG are removed. In step OP_CODESEPARATOR after OP_CHECKSIG are also removed.		In step 2, only OP_CODESEPARATOR before OP_CHECKSIG are removed. In step OP_CODESEPARATOR after OP_CHECKSIG are also removed.


			= More info =

			Maybe add short description from here [[Contracts#Theory]] for all SIGHASH_*? [[User:Mad\|Mad]]

2011-07-30T15:01:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 30 July 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	However, doesn't step 6 seem redundant? [[User:Vegard\|Vegard]]		However, doesn't step 6 seem redundant? [[User:Vegard\|Vegard]]

	Answer: [[User:sirk390\|sirk390]]
	~~See~~ comment for step 6. in the bitcoin sources (script.cpp:882)		Answer: ([[User:sirk390\|sirk390]])
			The comment for step 6. in the bitcoin sources help to understand this (script.cpp:882)
	// In case concatenating two scripts ends up with two codeseparators,		// In case concatenating two scripts ends up with two codeseparators,
	// or an extra one at the end, this prevents all those possible incompatibilities.		// or an extra one at the end, this prevents all those possible incompatibilities.
			In step 2, only OP_CODESEPARATOR before OP_CHECKSIG are removed. In step OP_CODESEPARATOR after OP_CHECKSIG are also removed.
	In step 2, only OP_CODESEPARATOR before OP_CHECKSIG are removed. In step OP_CODESEPARATOR after OP_CHECKSIG are also removed.

2011-07-30T14:57:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 30 July 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	However, doesn't step 6 seem redundant? [[User:Vegard\|Vegard]]		However, doesn't step 6 seem redundant? [[User:Vegard\|Vegard]]

			Answer: [[User:sirk390\|sirk390]]
			See comment for step 6. in the bitcoin sources (script.cpp:882)
			// In case concatenating two scripts ends up with two codeseparators,
			// or an extra one at the end, this prevents all those possible incompatibilities.

			In step 2, only OP_CODESEPARATOR before OP_CHECKSIG are removed. In step OP_CODESEPARATOR after OP_CHECKSIG are also removed.

2011-07-30T14:38:31Z

Code samples and raw dumps

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 30 July 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	However, doesn't step 6 seem redundant? [[User:Vegard\|Vegard]]		However, doesn't step 6 seem redundant? [[User:Vegard\|Vegard]]

	~~=Code samples and raw dumps=~~
	~~The disassembled code sample doesn't seem to be coherent with the result="(...)" part and with the script below.~~
	~~fixed some of them, but there are still errors~~

2011-07-30T10:20:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 30 July 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:
	=Code samples and raw dumps=		=Code samples and raw dumps=
	The disassembled code sample doesn't seem to be coherent with the result="(...)" part and with the script below.		The disassembled code sample doesn't seem to be coherent with the result="(...)" part and with the script below.
	fixed some of them, but there are still errors		fixed some of them, but there are still errors