Dmitry Petukhov

> don't force people to update to new-style transactions, to avoid breaking covenants. If old-style transactions are still possible after HF, the old-covenant-encumbered outputs can be spent in these old-style...

for reference - relevant issues: #233 #448

> master blinding key, which is actually Hash(some_pubkey_in_odd_hardened_path). This allows export of master blinding privkey for auditing purposes even for hardware wallets(xpub and xprv together to track funds in a...

An argument against using Hash(some_pubkey_in_odd_hardened_path) - if there's a clash in derivation paths, and somehow for example 0x80'BLN' (0x80424c4e) derivation index gets reused, the pubkey is much likely to be...

> asset/value blinding factors: ... HMAC it with txid:nOut, or chunk up the txid and use it as a few normal derivation indices Chunk up and use as indexes would...

> you can think of the K expression doing the validation itself Validation - yes, but I understand (dis)satisfaction as "outcome that has an effect on the overall spendability of...

The descriptions for "B", "V" and "W" describe (dis)satisfactions in terms of effects on the stack ("push" or "do not push" something on the stack). It is natural to expect...

`pk(A)` can still be thought of as consuming the signature. I think we can say that "K"-type expression cannot be (dis)satisfied by itself, but bears "satisfaction obligation". This obligation is...

> It is natural to expect that "K" type description would also hold the same principle of describing on therms of stack effects. Can we maybe say that `pk_k(A)` and...

I pushed an update that rephrases the text in accordance to my previous message.