You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #2183 we deleted our sighash implementation in order to use the librustzcash one, since we found a couple of bug in ours.
However, we may want to revert to our own implementation (and maybe implement our own ZIP-244 sighash). One possible reason for doing that would be efficiency (since we need to reserialize the transaction and deserialize it with librustzcash), but there could be others.
We must decide if we actually want to do this.
Known Issues
The Zebra sighash implementation changes the sighash based on the current network upgrade. But the specification uses the transaction version to select the sighash. We need to fix this bug before we can re-use the Zebra implementation, because it impacts NU5, which allows both V4 and V5 transactions.
We might want to remove some unimplemented! placeholders in the original code after it is reverted. See for example this previous attempt.
If this is done, it might be interesting to remove some unimplemented! placeholders in the original code after it is reverted. See for example this previous attempt.
Motivation
In #2183 we deleted our sighash implementation in order to use the librustzcash one, since we found a couple of bug in ours.
However, we may want to revert to our own implementation (and maybe implement our own ZIP-244 sighash). One possible reason for doing that would be efficiency (since we need to reserialize the transaction and deserialize it with librustzcash), but there could be others.
We must decide if we actually want to do this.
Known Issues
The Zebra sighash implementation changes the sighash based on the current network upgrade. But the specification uses the transaction version to select the sighash. We need to fix this bug before we can re-use the Zebra implementation, because it impacts NU5, which allows both V4 and V5 transactions.
We might want to remove some
unimplemented!
placeholders in the original code after it is reverted. See for example this previous attempt.Specifications
ZIPs 143, 243, and 244.
Related Tickets
If we use Zebra's implementation, we might also want to Move duplicate Transaction code into methods
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: