Difference between revisions of "Talk:OP CHECKSIG"
(→Code samples and raw dumps) |
|||
| 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. | ||
Revision as of 14:57, 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
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.
