From aef4d9e084daf7b57c6b8aac4a47d5b0611f0c9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Antoine Poinsot Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:14:20 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] bip54: reword "potentially executed" language in sigops limit specification The paragraph in its entirety is already unambiguous that all signature-checking operations *present* in the Script (as opposed to *executed*) are counted. However i received feedback that the "potentially executed" language in the first sentence of this paragraph may be confusing. This is because it is in theory possible to have a more accurate upper bound by analyzing the possible spending paths and use the maximum number of signature-checking operations in either to check against the limit. This commit rewords the first sentence to use the word "present" to be extra-clear before even describing how the accounting is performed in later sentences. --- bip-0054.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bip-0054.md b/bip-0054.md index d278f58a..10c5697b 100644 --- a/bip-0054.md +++ b/bip-0054.md @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Given a block at height `N`: or equal to the value of the timestamp of the block at height `N-2015` (TN ≥ TN−2015). -A limit is set on the number of potentially executed signature operations in validating a +A limit is set on the number of signature operations present in the scripts used to validate a transaction. It applies to all transactions in the block except the coinbase transaction[^1]. For each input in the transaction, count the number of `CHECKSIG` and `CHECKMULTISIG` in the input scriptSig and previous output's scriptPubKey, including the P2SH redeemScript. If the total summed