<p>First of all, you can use 1-of-1 msig for a redeem script:</p>

<pre><code>OP_1 push(pubkey) OP_1 OP_CHECKMULTISIG
</code></pre>

<p>But this one is better:</p>

<pre><code>push(pubkey) OP_CHECKSIG
</code></pre>

<p>And of course, you are welcome to use segwit form</p>

<pre><code>OP_0 push(hash160)
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T00:14:21.713Z
Thank you!  With the 3rd (segwit) form, is there an implicit CHECKSIG-type operand?
muanon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T07:41:38.673Z
no. required for validation data is moved to `witness` part of transaction
amaclin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-11T12:36:17.303Z
2018-01-11T12:42:01.070Z
2018-01-11T12:42:01.070Z
amaclin
<p>How would one go about creating a single signature P2SH transaction? (Analogous to a "2 of 3 multisig P2SH" but instead I'm asking about a "1 of 1".)  Would one wrap a standard P2PKH scriptPubKey inside of a P2SH redeem script? Or is there a better/preferred way of achieving this? Thank you.</p>

<transactions><script><raw-transaction><p2sh>
Single signature P2SH redeem script
muanon
# Single signature P2SH redeem script

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-01-11)

How would one go about creating a single signature P2SH transaction? (Analogous to a "2 of 3 multisig P2SH" but instead I'm asking about a "1 of 1".) Would one wrap a standard P2PKH scriptPubKey inside of a P2SH redeem script? Or is there a better/preferred way of achieving this? Thank you.

**Tags:** transactions, script, raw-transaction, p2sh


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-01-11. Score: 1

First of all, you can use 1-of-1 msig for a redeem script:
OP_1 push(pubkey) OP_1 OP_CHECKMULTISIG

But this one is better:
push(pubkey) OP_CHECKSIG

And of course, you are welcome to use segwit form
OP_0 push(hash160)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you!  With the 3rd (segwit) form, is there an implicit CHECKSIG-type operand?  
> **username_1**: no. required for validation data is moved to `witness` part of transaction  

---

