TIP-52: Multi Address

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.

[PhilippGackstatter]

Rendered Version

Note that:

• This TIP is in Draft mode and as such is still being updated.
• Links to other new TIPs don't work and will only work once the TIP is merged.

[thibault-martinez]

Should it be a syntactic rule that it can't be used outside of a MultiUnlock or are we fine waiting semantic and see that address/unlock is not a good match?

[PhilippGackstatter]

The schemas tell you where the Empty Unlock is allowed - only in Multi Unlocks.

It's somewhat similar for implicit account creation addresses. They are also not allowed in Address Unlock Conditions within NFT Outputs, but are allowed in Basic Outputs. Neither are they allowed in Expiration Unlock Conditions. Those rules are not defined explicitly (but can be derived from TIP-42 when being creative), but really the rule is encoded in the schema of the Expiration UC.

Since we already have the schemas and they are much easier to maintain in the TIPs I would like to avoid duplicating those rules in text were it cannot be automatically updated.