Talk:OP CHECKSIG: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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: | |||
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. | |||
Revision as of 15:01, 30 July 2011
Redundant step?
Under "How it works", we have steps 2 and 6:
- 2. A new subscript is created from the instruction from the most recent OP_CODESEPARATOR to the end of the script. If there is no OP_CODESEPARATOR the entire script becomes the subscript (hereby referred to as subScript)
- 6. All OP_CODESEPARATORS are removed from subScript
However, doesn't step 6 seem redundant? Vegard
Answer: (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,
// 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.