Conversation
|
Pay to public key is used in Bitcoin blockchain, with most of satoshi's coins. Why should it be removed? |
|
@tamasblummer Because it's not an address. It's just a script. Script descriptors make it possible to construct scriptPubKeys for them, so we don't need to have them awkwardly put in the |
|
This script is usually interpreted by explorer as sending to an address. I do not see value in a PR removing an interpretation that is common. |
|
Yeah, that's a wrong interpretation of that script. And more modern explorers will also not show it as such. I agree that it's unfortunate to remove features from a codebase. But it's in the wrong place and script descriptors can cover the lost functionality. |
|
Hmmm I remember @apoelstra had some thoughts on this. |
|
Yeah, fine by me. If the ambiguous interpretation is not even universally used I'd rather drop it because it's confusing and could lead to lost coins. |
|
Sounds good. @stevenroose please rebase! |
b8f2864 to
f80e882
Compare
|
@dongcarl done. |
There is no address format for p2pk.
sgeisler
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK since it gets the Address type closer to always supporting round trips (I don't know if it's the case yet and think we should add fuzz tests for it at some point).
Enable edition 2018
The processing parts already does the same checks as the "dummy adding" parts.
There is no address format for p2pk.
Script Descriptors should probably be used to construct scriptPubkeys and scriptSigs for using them instead of the
Addresstype.