BIP-322: fix proof-of-funds inputs wording #2058
Merged
Conversation
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
jonatack
reviewed
Dec 15, 2025
Member
jonatack
left a comment
jonatack
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, pinging BIP author @kallewoof for yay or nay.
murchandamus
added
Proposed BIP modification
Pending acceptance
Contributor
|
ACK. Thanks @kurahin. |
jonatack
removed
the
Pending acceptance
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The Signing section previously stated that signers may add additional outputs to to_sign for proving control of funds. This contradicts the Full (Proof of Funds) subsection, which specifies that the claimed UTXOs must be included as additional inputs of to_sign and validated against the current UTXO set, and also conflicts with the requirement that to_sign has exactly one output (an OP_RETURN).