Merged
Conversation
| That is, CHECKSIG in a witness program is counted as only 1 sigop, and CHECKMULTISIG in a witness program is counted as 1 to 20 sigops according to the arguments. This rule applies to both native witness program and P2SH witness program. | ||
| In addition, opcodes within the P2WPKH/P2WSH program are counted identical to as previously within the P2SH check script. | ||
| That is, CHECKSIG in a P2WPKH/P2WSH program is counted as only 1 sigop, and CHECKMULTISIG in a P2WSH program is counted as 1 to 20 sigops according to the arguments. This rule applies to both native witness program and P2SH witness program. | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest we use the term "witness script" rather than "P2WPKH/P2WSH program" when talking about the unhashed sequence of op codes and data pushes that then get hashed into a P2WSH witness program. In the case of P2WPKH, the witness program is the pubkey hash and the script is implicit.
Contributor
Author
|
@CodeShark fixed |
Member
bip-0141.mediawiki
Outdated
| That is, CHECKSIG in a witness program is counted as only 1 sigop, and CHECKMULTISIG in a witness program is counted as 1 to 20 sigops according to the arguments. This rule applies to both native witness program and P2SH witness program. | ||
| Each P2WPKH input is counted as 1 sigop. | ||
|
|
||
| In addition, opcodes within a P2WSH witnessScript are counted identical to as previously within the P2SH check script. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure this sentence is grammatically correct.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, it should be "identically as" - not "identical to as"
Contributor
Author
|
fixed and squashed |
Member
|
ACK |
maflcko
pushed a commit
to bitcoin-core/gui
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2021
…s/witness_program/witness_script/) 8a2b58d test: fix segwit terminology (s/witness_program/witness_script/) (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: This PR fixes wrong uses of the term "witness program", which according to [BIP141](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#Witness_program) is defined as follows: > A scriptPubKey (or redeemScript as defined in BIP16/P2SH) that consists of a 1-byte push opcode (for 0 to 16) followed by a data push between 2 and 40 bytes gets a new special meaning. The value of the first push is called the "version byte". **The following byte vector pushed is called the "witness program".** In most cases where "witness program" is used in tests (concerns comments, variable names and in one instance even a function name) what we really want to denote is the "witness script". Thanks to [MarcoFalke for pointing this out in a review comment](bitcoin/bitcoin#22363 (comment))! Some historical background: At the time when the P2P segwit tests were first introduced (commit 330b0f3, PR #8149), the term "witness program" was not used consistently in BIP141: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46451/what-is-the-precise-definition-of-witness-program This was fixed in PR bitcoin/bips#416 later. So in some way, this PR can be seen as a very late follow-up to the BIP141 fix that also reflects these changes in the tests. ACKs for top commit: josibake: tACK bitcoin/bitcoin@8a2b58d Tree-SHA512: f36bb9e53d1b54b86bfa87ec12f33e3ebca64b5f59d97e9662fe35ba12c25e1c9a4f93a5425d0eaa3879dce9e50368d345555b927bfab76945511f873396892b
sidhujag
pushed a commit
to syscoin/syscoin
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2021
…s_program/witness_script/) 8a2b58d test: fix segwit terminology (s/witness_program/witness_script/) (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: This PR fixes wrong uses of the term "witness program", which according to [BIP141](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#Witness_program) is defined as follows: > A scriptPubKey (or redeemScript as defined in BIP16/P2SH) that consists of a 1-byte push opcode (for 0 to 16) followed by a data push between 2 and 40 bytes gets a new special meaning. The value of the first push is called the "version byte". **The following byte vector pushed is called the "witness program".** In most cases where "witness program" is used in tests (concerns comments, variable names and in one instance even a function name) what we really want to denote is the "witness script". Thanks to [MarcoFalke for pointing this out in a review comment](bitcoin#22363 (comment))! Some historical background: At the time when the P2P segwit tests were first introduced (commit 330b0f3, PR bitcoin#8149), the term "witness program" was not used consistently in BIP141: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46451/what-is-the-precise-definition-of-witness-program This was fixed in PR bitcoin/bips#416 later. So in some way, this PR can be seen as a very late follow-up to the BIP141 fix that also reflects these changes in the tests. ACKs for top commit: josibake: tACK bitcoin@8a2b58d Tree-SHA512: f36bb9e53d1b54b86bfa87ec12f33e3ebca64b5f59d97e9662fe35ba12c25e1c9a4f93a5425d0eaa3879dce9e50368d345555b927bfab76945511f873396892b
JaredTate
pushed a commit
to DigiByte-Core/digibyte
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2025
…s/witness_program/witness_script/) 8a2b58d test: fix segwit terminology (s/witness_program/witness_script/) (Sebastian Falbesoner) Pull request description: This PR fixes wrong uses of the term "witness program", which according to [BIP141](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#Witness_program) is defined as follows: > A scriptPubKey (or redeemScript as defined in BIP16/P2SH) that consists of a 1-byte push opcode (for 0 to 16) followed by a data push between 2 and 40 bytes gets a new special meaning. The value of the first push is called the "version byte". **The following byte vector pushed is called the "witness program".** In most cases where "witness program" is used in tests (concerns comments, variable names and in one instance even a function name) what we really want to denote is the "witness script". Thanks to [MarcoFalke for pointing this out in a review comment](bitcoin/bitcoin#22363 (comment))! Some historical background: At the time when the P2P segwit tests were first introduced (commit 330b0f3, PR #8149), the term "witness program" was not used consistently in BIP141: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46451/what-is-the-precise-definition-of-witness-program This was fixed in PR bitcoin/bips#416 later. So in some way, this PR can be seen as a very late follow-up to the BIP141 fix that also reflects these changes in the tests. ACKs for top commit: josibake: tACK bitcoin/bitcoin@8a2b58d Tree-SHA512: f36bb9e53d1b54b86bfa87ec12f33e3ebca64b5f59d97e9662fe35ba12c25e1c9a4f93a5425d0eaa3879dce9e50368d345555b927bfab76945511f873396892b
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@sipa