You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on May 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
Is burn_script_builder a typo? It's seems to be called from places that have nothing to do with burn.
I find it confusing that the function get_expected_script lives under Verify for Contract, even though it's also used when constructing proof in kaleidoscope tx_builder.ts.
In general it's good to explicitly state which parts of the spec are (not) implemented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
If I understand correctly the current version only implements the OP_RETURN commitment scheme and not yet the Pay-to-contract one?
That would also explain why the Contract constructor doesn't have a
commitment_scheme
field.From contract.rs:
Is
burn_script_builder
a typo? It's seems to be called from places that have nothing to do withburn
.I find it confusing that the function
get_expected_script
lives underVerify for Contract
, even though it's also used when constructing proof in kaleidoscopetx_builder.ts
.In general it's good to explicitly state which parts of the spec are (not) implemented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: