Compare
Four documents, the same five questions.
No throughput league table and no yield. The cells are what this library is willing to say about the text.
| Question | SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT for Taproot Scripts |
|---|---|
| What the text proposes | BIP 118, SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT for Taproot Scripts. This BIP modifies the behaviour of the [[bip-0342.mediawiki|BIP 342]] signature opcodes '''What about key path spends?''' This proposal only supports ANYPREVOUT signatures via script path spends, and does not support ANYPREVOUT signatures for key path spends. |
| Who may write | Christian Decker |
| What is settled | This BIP modifies the behaviour of the [[bip-0342.mediawiki|BIP 342]] signature opcodes '''What about key path spends?''' This proposal only supports ANYPREVOUT signatures via script path spends, and does not support ANYPREVOUT signatures for key path spends. |
| Load-bearing assumption | A soft fork does not bind a node that never upgrades. It binds the nodes that enforce the new rejection. |
| What this library says afterwards | Status in the source: Draft. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification. |
| Rights | Official external source only |