update bip0129 to reduce ambiguity

[instagibbs]

trafficstars

I read it as "both types accepted" and couldn't find the definition of the signature format for non-p2pkh scripts, leading me to reread this section again after reading the BIP322. I think this is clearer, and if I'm wrong, it definitely needs a boost.

[luke-jr]

@hugohn

[hugohn]

Oops sorry I missed this. Thanks @luke-jr !

@instagibbs The idea was that I wanted to make BIP-0129 future-proof. Non-legacy BIP-0322 signatures would be ideal because those signatures actually commit to the XPUBs listed in the BSMS file. When BIP-0322 is ready we could just switch to the new signature type without having to update BIP-0129. But yeah BIP-0322 is still incomplete at the moment.

[murchandamus]

@hugohn, @instagibbs: Could you perhaps clarify the status of this PR?

[instagibbs]

I don't remember this :)

[murchandamus]

I suppose that is meant to mean that you no longer seek to get this merged?

Will close after 2024-05-10 unless I hear otherwise.

[instagibbs]

@hugohn can open another if he understands it