Spectivity
← Back to Bitcoin Improvement Proposals
BIPinformationalopcodessigning

BIP-322: fix proof-of-funds inputs wording

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).

No reviews
kurahin·Updated Dec 17, 2025·0 reviews·0 attestations·View source
Collections:BIPs — Merged

Specification

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).

Discussion (0 threads)

Loading discussions...