refactor: use SIGHASH_ALL explicitly
#840
Open
+7
−7
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
djordon
added
sbtc signer binary
matteojug
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, about whether we should make the change or not I am not sure: it is a relatively small increase in cost and we remove some potentially risky thing, but otoh I'm not sure what's the actual possibility of bitcoin lib changing this without a major release and big warnings all around.
|
Yeah, maybe we can have Asymmetric weigh in here? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This was discussed in #782, and came up as part of #798.
Changes
TapSighashType::All, which maps toSIGHASH_ALL. This makes the sighash type explicit, which appears to increase the transaction size by at least one byte.Before we used
TapSighashType::Default, which isTapSighashType::Allalready. But I have a preference for making the sighash type explicit, and unfortunately this preference has a cost of increasing the transaction size by one byte. Bitcoin usually doesn't change that much and changing the default here seems like a big change so maybe we can rely on the default behavior. If someone else has an opinion here, let me know.Testing Information
This is just a refactor, if tests pass then we're good.
Checklist: