|
|
|
@ -325,10 +325,10 @@ spend the funds.
|
|
|
|
|
Some Bitcoin documentation, including earlier editions of this book,
|
|
|
|
|
uses the term "m-of-n" for a traditional multisignature. However, it's hard
|
|
|
|
|
to tell "m" and "n" apart when they're spoken, so we use the alternative
|
|
|
|
|
t-of-k. Both phrases refer to the same type of signature scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
_t_-of-_k_. Both phrases refer to the same type of signature scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
====
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The general form of an output script setting a t-of-k multisignature
|
|
|
|
|
The general form of an output script setting a _t_-of-_k_ multisignature
|
|
|
|
|
condition is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ OP_0 <Sig B> <Sig C>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people believe this oddity was a bug in the original code for
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin, but a plausible alternative explanation exists. Verifying
|
|
|
|
|
t-of-k signatures can require many more than t or k signature checking
|
|
|
|
|
_t_-of-_k_ signatures can require many more than _t_ or _k_ signature checking
|
|
|
|
|
operations. Let's consider a simple example of 1-in-5, with the
|
|
|
|
|
following combined script:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|