| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Before 7cedafc5412857404e9a6c3450b100cb8ee4081a added the TREE
section, this line appeared right after the KEY section.
It doesn't really fit in its former location since it's the KEY
section that discusses derivation path syntax, not the TREE section.
|
|
descriptor wallets and PSBTs
9de0d94508828f5fdfaf688ccda5a91d38b32c58 doc: add disclaimer highlighting shortcomings of the basic multisig example (Michael Dietz)
f9479e4626f6b5126ff8cdab3a7e718c609429ef test, doc: basic M-of-N multisig minor cleanup and clarifications (Michael Dietz)
e05cd0546a155afcd45c43ce730c4abecd40dfed doc: add another signing flow for multisig with descriptor wallets and PSBTs (Michael Dietz)
17dd6573008c8aca9fc0da9419225c85a4f94330 doc: M-of-N multisig using descriptor wallets and PSBTs, as well as a signing flow (Michael Dietz)
1f20501efce041d34e63ab9a11359bedf4a82cd5 test: add functional test for multisig flow with descriptor wallets and PSBTs (Michael Dietz)
Pull request description:
Aims to resolve issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21278. I try to follow the steps laanwj outlined there exactly, with the exception of using `combinepsbt` instead of `joinpsbts`. I wrote a functional test to make sure it works as expected before doing the docs, and figured it would also be a good source of documentation. So I kept the test as simple as possible and didn't go crazy with edge-cases and various checks. I do have a lot more test-cases I've written that I will follow up with (either in a separate PR or another commit - lmk if you have a preference), but I want to do it in a way that doesn't bloat this test so it remains useful as a quickstart (unless that's a bad idea)?
ACKs for top commit:
S3RK:
Code review ACK 9de0d94. Rspigler's argument convinced me that we should leave the workflow with two wallets. I assume using multisig with external signers is a popular use-case and it's important to keep compatibility.
laanwj:
Code and documentation review ACK 9de0d94508828f5fdfaf688ccda5a91d38b32c58
Tree-SHA512: 6c76e787c21f09d8be5eaa11f3ca3eaa4868497824050562bdfb2095c73b90f5e8987a8775119891d6bfde586e3f31ad1b13e4b67b0802e1d23ef050227a1211
|
|
|
|
wallet_multisig_descriptor_psbt.py is refactored in this commit. While
behavior doesn't change we do cleanup the way wallets are accessed
throughout the test as this is done a lot for the various signers
and their multisigs. We also get rid of some shallow methods and
instead inline them for improved readability.
descriptors.md is improved to be more explicit about which wallet
(ie the signer or multisig) is required for each step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
signing flow
|
|
This adds a new descriptor with syntax e.g. tr(KEY,{S1,{{S2,S3},S4})
where KEY is a key expression for the internal key and S_i are
script expression for the leaves. They have to be organized in
nested {A,B} groups, with exactly two elements.
tr() only exists at the top level, and inside the script expressions
only pk() scripts are allowed for now.
|
|
fixes a typo
|
|
As described in "Key origin identification" section, a descriptor
that has hardened derivation after xpub does not let you compute scripts
without access to the corresponding private keys. Such a descriptor is
practically useless.
The text after the descriptor said "with child key *1'/2* of the
specified xpub", and clearly an xpub cannot have "child key" with
hardened derivation. Therefore it makes sense to fix this inconsistency
to not confuse the reader of the doc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add some implementation details, and tweak phrasing in examples section to be
more explicit about how script expressions are used for matching.
|
|
|
