RFC for multi-sig terms #16
Conversation
This RFC will specify the multi-signature terms for Shelley, including their low level format.
mgudemann
force-pushed
the
rfc/multi-sig_terms
branch
from
9705eff
to
844c925
Compare
text/0000-multi-sig-term.md
Outdated
| - `RequireSignature kh` where `kh` is a hashed key | ||
| - `RequireAllOf [msigs]` where `[msigs]` is a list of multi-sig terms | ||
| - `RequireAnyOf [msisg]` where `[msigs]` is a list of multi-sig terms | ||
| - `RequireMOf m [msig]` where `m` is a natural and `[msigs]` is a list of |
text/0000-multi-sig-term.md
Outdated
| - `RequireMOf m [msig]` where `m` is a natural and `[msigs]` is a list of | ||
| multi-sig terms | ||
|
|
||
| This forms a tree-like structure where each node is of the form |
text/0000-multi-sig-term.md
Outdated
| `RequireAnyOf [msigs]` and `RequireMOf 1 [msigs]` are logically equivalent, just | ||
| as `RequireAllOf [msigs]` and `RequireMOf (length msisg) [msigs]`. From a point | ||
| of readability and to a lesser part also for encoding size, it makes sense to | ||
| have the special case terms for _any_ and _all_. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And it'll be more directly useful with later extensions, e.g. time locks and hash locks.
text/0000-multi-sig-term.md
Outdated
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| *Note* the encoding of `m` into a major type `0` single byte allows for a | ||
| maximal value of `23` for `m` in a `m` out of `n` multi-sig scheme. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need to restrict it to the one-byte form. We just need to limit the overall script size.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks, was left-over from an initial version that used raw bytes description only
|
|
||
| The presented scheme does not resolve the problem of the communication that is | ||
| necessary for parties to agree and collectively sign a transaction for a | ||
| multi-signature scheme. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And we've not yet addressed limiting the overall script size, or any relation to fees.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added this. Should we make this that "... any relation to fees apart from the additional size of the encoded script in bytes. As using multi-signature terms might incur significantly higher computational cost, this will require a specific cost-model." ?
This RFC will specify the multi-signature terms for Shelley, including their low
level format.