Skip to content

proposes replacing a (strange?) 'the' with a 'then' #54

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
katesalazar wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

proposes replacing a (strange?) 'the' with a 'then' #54

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 8 additions & 1 deletion _posts/2021-06-21-blockchain.markdown
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -926,7 +926,14 @@ OP_CHECKSIG

This is where things get a bit crazy with Bitcoin. It has a whole stack-based scripting language, but unless you're doing crazy multisig smart contract triple escrow backflips (?), the vast majority of transactions use one of very few simple "special case" scripts, just like the one here. By now my eyes just glaze over it as the standard simple thing. This "Pkscript" is the "locking script" for this specific Output, which holds 0.001 BTC in it. We are going to want to spend this Output and turn it into an Input in our upcoming transaction. In order to unlock this output we are going to have to satisfy the conditions of this locking script. In English, this script is saying that any Transaction that aspires to spend this Output must satisfy two conditions. 1) their Public key better hash to 4b3518229b0d3554fe7cd3796ade632aff3069d8. And 2) the digital signature for the aspiring transaction better validate as being generated by this public key's associated private key. Only the owner of the secret key will be able to both 1) provide the full public key, which will be checked to hash correctly, and 2) create the digital signature, as we'll soon see.

By the way, we can verify that of course our public key hashes correctly, so we'll be able to include it in our upcoming transaction, and the all of the mining nodes will be able to verify condition (1). Very early Bitcoin transactions had locking scripts that directly contained the public key (instead of its hash) followed by OP_CHECKSIG, but doing it in this slightly more complex way protects the exact public key behind the hash, until the owner wants to spend the funds, only then do they reveal the public key. (If you'd like to learn more look up p2pk vs p2pkh transactions).
By the way, we can verify that of course our public key hashes correctly, so
we'll be able to include it in our upcoming transaction, and then all of the
mining nodes will be able to verify condition (1). Very early Bitcoin
transactions had locking scripts that directly contained the public key
(instead of its hash) followed by OP_CHECKSIG, but doing it in this slightly
more complex way protects the exact public key behind the hash, until the owner
wants to spend the funds, only then do they reveal the public key. (If you'd
like to learn more look up p2pk vs p2pkh transactions).


```python
Expand Down