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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Question about Taproot upgrade. #656

Closed
Kayryu opened this issue Sep 17, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Question about Taproot upgrade. #656

Kayryu opened this issue Sep 17, 2021 · 3 comments
Labels
question
Projects
Taproot

Comments

@Kayryu
Copy link

Kayryu commented Sep 17, 2021

When we complete the Taproot upgrade.
Is it necessary for developers to use Schnorr signatures instead of ECDSA signatures? Or are both signatures compatible?
@dr-orlovsky
Copy link
Collaborator

The next major release version (v0.28.0) is supposed to ship with Taproot support https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/milestone/10

Hard to say when exactly it will be released (this is an opensource project, so release depends on many unrelated parties - code contributors, reviewers and their availability). If you'd like to boost the speed of release you are welcome to contribute / review PRs. The tracking issue for the Taproot support is here: #503

The project for tracking the overall taproot progress is here: https://github.com/orgs/rust-bitcoin/projects/3

Not sure I understood what do you mean by signatrues compatibility. Taproot uses only Schnorr signatures, it does not work with ECDSA. But it will be possible to continue using ECDSA for non-Taproot outputs.

@sanket1729
Copy link
Member

@Kayryu can this be closed?

@Kayryu
Copy link
Author

Kayryu commented Sep 22, 2021

Thank you for your answers, I like it a lot. it can be closed.

@elichai elichai closed this as completed Sep 22, 2021
@dr-orlovsky dr-orlovsky added this to Done in Taproot Sep 25, 2021
yancyribbens pushed a commit to yancyribbens/rust-bitcoin that referenced this issue Mar 23, 2024
@apoelstra
Merge rust-bitcoin/rust-miniscript#657: compiler: improve logic when …
f6ffc3e 
…deciding between conjunctions and multi/multi_a

200991d compiler: improve logic for deciding between thresholds and ands (Andrew Poelstra)
bc3b8dc policy: rename Threshold variant to Thresh (Andrew Poelstra)
78db616 consolidate some FIXMEs (Andrew Poelstra)
0666aef error: remove some unused variants (Andrew Poelstra)
b2ec4a8 clippy: fix some nits introduced by rust-bitcoin#651 (Andrew Poelstra)

Pull request description:

  The compiler logic when encountering thresholds of pks is currently a bit confused, and therefore chooses multi/multi_a in cases where this is not the most efficient compilation.

  This PR fixes that, and also brings in a few other cleanup commits that I had laying around.

  This does **not** fix rust-bitcoin#656, which I didn't know how to approach.

ACKs for top commit:
  sanket1729:
    ACK 200991d

Tree-SHA512: 252a60891cf1c1d1cd3ded88d97122fd1e76bd25807770f4843ae68bd2d854fc617518f26be86dcb57cd7fc369e1a4be81daa42ee1a6d4bc976dbad6dc1150f6
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
question
Projects
Taproot
Done
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@dr-orlovsky @elichai @sanket1729 @Kayryu