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

Add witness script for non-anchor static payment output psbt #3352

Conversation

alecchendev
Copy link
Contributor

Found some sort of regression I think (or maybe this was changed for a reason?), previously a static payment output would include the witness script like this, but doesn't anymore.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.60%. Comparing base (a952d2d) to head (6b738c6).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3352      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.61%   89.60%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         127      127              
  Lines      103531   103534       +3     
  Branches   103531   103534       +3     
==========================================
- Hits        92782    92772      -10     
- Misses       8052     8059       +7     
- Partials     2697     2703       +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't think it ever changed. That code was added in https://github.com/lightningdevkit/rust-lightning/pull/2605/files#diff-da70679f6091fec0bb9157e1890b8bbe607fe9633d0e79a1f282c35ea8ad0fe2 and I vaguely recall discussion of not doing this but I don't see it on that PR now. Really the payment key isn't a "witness script" because a "witness script" is the script which gets run, not a public key. There's some discussion of it at https://github.com/murchandamus/bips/pull/1/files#r1571487623 but @murchandamus defines it as only for P2WSH so this doesn't make sense.

@alecchendev
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oops yea realized this was actually just something in our fork that got changed when it was upstreamed in #2761. Never mind!

@alecchendev alecchendev closed this Oct 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants