highperfocused/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-03-17 21:32:50 +01:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #1353 from ishaanam/bip174-143

Browse Source 
BIP 174: fix incorrect reference to BIP 173
This commit is contained in:
kallewoof 2022-08-16 10:37:00 +09:00 committed by GitHub
commit 64aba767e2
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
bip-0174.mediawiki
View File

@ -676,7 +676,7 @@ The Signer must only accept a PSBT.
The Signer must only use the UTXOs provided in the PSBT to produce signatures for inputs.
Before signing a non-witness input, the Signer must verify that the TXID of the non-witness UTXO matches the TXID specified in the unsigned transaction.
Before signing a witness input, the Signer must verify that the witnessScript (if provided) matches the hash specified in the UTXO or the redeemScript, and the redeemScript (if provided) matches the hash in the UTXO.
The Signer may choose to fail to sign a segwit input if a non-witness UTXO is not provided. <ref>'''Why would non-witness UTXOs be provided for segwit inputs?''' The sighash algorithm for Segwit specified in BIP 173 is known to have an issue where an attacker could trick a user to sending Bitcoin to fees if they are able to convince the user to sign a malicious transaction multiple times. This is possible because the amounts in <tt>PSBT_IN_WITNESS_UTXO</tt> of other segwit inputs can be modified without effecting the signature for a particular input. In order to prevent this kind of attack, many wallets are requiring that the full previous transaction (i.e. <tt>PSBT_IN_NON_WITNESS_UTXO</tt>) be provided to ensure that the amounts of other inputs are not being tampered with.</ref>
The Signer may choose to fail to sign a segwit input if a non-witness UTXO is not provided. <ref>'''Why would non-witness UTXOs be provided for segwit inputs?''' The sighash algorithm for Segwit specified in BIP 143 is known to have an issue where an attacker could trick a user to sending Bitcoin to fees if they are able to convince the user to sign a malicious transaction multiple times. This is possible because the amounts in <tt>PSBT_IN_WITNESS_UTXO</tt> of other segwit inputs can be modified without effecting the signature for a particular input. In order to prevent this kind of attack, many wallets are requiring that the full previous transaction (i.e. <tt>PSBT_IN_NON_WITNESS_UTXO</tt>) be provided to ensure that the amounts of other inputs are not being tampered with.</ref>
The Signer should not need any additional data sources, as all necessary information is provided in the PSBT format.
The Signer must only add data to a PSBT.
Any signatures created by the Signer must be added as a "Partial Signature" key-value pair for the respective input it relates to.