Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 67 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: A method to deterministically generate multi-signature pay-to-script-hash transaction scripts.
3. Name the object that changes: P2SH.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 67 at the status the text itself states: Complete.
• The object that has to change is P2SH. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What does Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting charge, reject, or redefine on the first touch versus a later one?
• Does a reverted subcall roll the change back?
• Can you point at the object in a client: P2SH?

Terms

BIP 67

The public text titled Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting.

Complete

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

An underpriced or ambiguous EVM rule is not a feature. It is a block that takes longer than the gas limit claimed, or a client that disagrees about the result.

What the design proposes

• A method to deterministically generate multi-signature pay-to-script-hash transaction scripts.
• It focuses on defining how the public keys must be encoded and sorted so that the redeem script and corresponding P2SH address are always the same for a given set of keys and number of required signatures.
• Pay-to-script-hash (BIP-0011 [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0011.mediawiki BIP-0011] ) is a transaction type that allows funding of arbitrary scripts, where the recipient carries the cost of fee's associated with using longer, more complex scripts.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: It focuses on defining how the public keys must be encoded and sorted so that the redeem script and corresponding P2SH address are always the same for a given set of keys and number of required signatures.
• Locate P2SH in BIP 67 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• A gas or opcode change is not a throughput benchmark. It is a relative price and a validity rule.
• Constants in the text can be superseded by a later fork. Cite the EIP number and the fork you mean.
• The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 67 when a pitch says 'Deterministic Pay-to-script-hash multi-signature addresses through public key sorting' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.