Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[pull] master from bitcoin:master #41

Open
wants to merge 89 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

pull[bot]
Copy link

@pull pull bot commented Dec 17, 2024

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.1)

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

DanGould and others added 18 commits June 10, 2024 13:11
The reference sender implementation and \`payjoin proposal\` test vectors
are adjusted accordingly.

According to the psbt Input Finalizer spec "All other data except the
UTXO and unknown fields in the input key-value map should be cleared from
the PSBT. The UTXO should be kept to allow Transaction Extractors to
verify the final network serialized transaction."

I ran into a problem where an LND acting as sender FinalizePsbt gRPC
fails when sender utxo information is missing. I see no good reason to
remove utxo information from the PSBT.
Disallowing mixed inputs was based on incorrect assumption that no
wallet supports mixed inputs and thus mixed inputs imply PayJoin.
However there are at least three wallets supporting mixed inputs.
(Confirmed: Bitcoin Core, LND, Coinomi) Thus it makes sense to enable
mixed inputs to avoid a payjoin-specific fingerptint. To avoid
compatibility issues a grace period is suggested.

Co-authored-by: Martin Habovstiak <[email protected]>
The original text is ambiguous to allowing transaction cut-through
or not. Transaction cut-through enables savings by posting multiple
transaction intents through a single 2-party payjoin and is used
in practice in payjoins today. Let's explicitly allow it in the text.

Co-authored-by: Martin Habovstiak <[email protected]>
It's an optional parameter in BIP 21 Bitcoin URIs, but it doesn't hurt
to make it explicit.

Co-authored-by: Martin Habovstiak <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Falbesoner <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Falbesoner <[email protected]>
Given that both BIPs are now final, calling them drafts, seem very stale.
BIP125: Update description of BIPs 68 and 112
* Update bip-0348.md

* Update bip-0379.md
* typo bip-0087.mediawiki

* typos bip-0088.mediawiki

* typo bip-0098.mediawiki
* Update bip-0370.mediawiki

* Update bip-0373.mediawiki
@pull pull bot added the ⤵️ pull label Dec 17, 2024
jonatack and others added 30 commits December 28, 2024 18:20
BIP-374: add generated test vector .csv files
…es-executable

BIP374: update reference.py and secp256k1.py to be executable
BIP158: fix btcutil gcs broken link.
Co-authored-by: Pieter Wuille <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anthony Towns <[email protected]>
…-signature-format

BIP341: Explain the 64-byte signature format
`OP_SUCCESS188` is `0xbc`, not `0xbb`.
Co-authored-by: Yuval Kogman <[email protected]>
BIP345: fix OP_SUCCESS188 hex value
BIP375: Sending Silent Payments in PSBTs
Fix BIP 78 & BIP 174 Conflict: Keep input utxo data through input finalization
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.