Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &

Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &
Key item features Ultimate Security: Generates a private key that remains on the card, safeguarding crypto and NFTs from hackers with EAL6+ certification and audited firmware. Versatile Compatibility: Manages over 13,000 tokens across 70+ blockchains, supporting DeFi, NFTs, and DeEx without wires, Bluetooth, or USB. Effortless Operation: Utilizes NFC for secure transactions via a mobile device and the Tangem app, enabling buying and selling crypto with various payment methods. Smart Backup: Features a second Tangem Wallet as a backup, eliminating the need for paper, pictures, or seed phrases for recovery. Durable Design: Boasts IP68 protection against environmental conditions, ensuring longevity and robust physical security. Comprehensive Support: Compatible with Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, USDT, and over 6,000 cryptocurrencies, integrating with dApps and WalletConnect.

LBANK

Why did BIP-342 replace CHECKMULTISIG with a new opcode, instead of just removing FindAndDelete from it?

Legacy CHECKMULTISIG has FindAndDelete attached to it. SegWit v0 already removed FindAndDelete and kept CHECKMULTISIG working fine. So for tapscript, the simple path was: keep CHECKMULTISIG, say FindAndDelete doesn't run here. BIP-342 didn't do that. It disabled CHECKMULTISIG completely and added CHECKSIGADD, so multisig is now a sequence of opcodes plus a comparison. That's a much bigger change than just fixing the bug. I'd like to understand why. A few things I'm curious about:

Was a "clean CHECKMULTISIG" ever considered, and why was it rejected? Was the main reason batch verification with Schnorr, or something else? Or was it a deliberate choice to move away from opcodes that pack whole patterns, toward smaller primitives that script authors combine themselves?

The last one matters to me because if it's a real design shift, it probably also shapes how future opcodes (CAT, CSFS, etc.) should look. If anyone was part of those discussions, I'd love to hear the actual reasoning.

Note: This is not about whether CHECKSIGADD could be retrofitted to SegWit v0 (that question has been answered — it can't, it would be a hardfork). My question is the opposite direction: when designing tapscript, why introduce CHECKSIGADD at all, instead of keeping CHECKMULTISIG with FindAndDelete removed?



from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/0AvyP6x
via IFTTT

Popular posts from this blog

Crypto Exec Warns Tokenization Is Moving Faster Than Expected

Bitcoin Mining Could Be Strengthening The Ruble, Russian Central Bank Says

Nigerian SEC Partners With Police To Tackle Crypto Ponzi Schemes – Details