From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavin@bitcoinfoundation•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: relax the IsStandard rules for P2SH transactions
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:09:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140619100909.GA3544@savin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2O42pER0b1v9oeU14_K=KVWVqHzcfFmWAhSxoYAn12vg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1477 bytes --]
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 08:52:22AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> RE: most of Peter Todd's comments:
>
> All of that should be separate pull requests. Big Honking Pull Requests
> are harder to review and are more likely to be bike-shedded to death.
Well, just doing one and not the rest isn't necessarily a good idea. The
malleability protection definitely seems like a good idea, and has had
quite a bit of review.
> RE: not relaying/mining transactions with OP_NOPs so miners don't mine
> up-version transactions that are invalid under future-new-rules: I'm not
> convinced it is worth adding more code (more potential for bugs) to protect
> against something that isn't going to happen because up-version
> transactions are non-standard (due to version check) in any case.
Do we have consensus that future soft-forks to add new opcodes will
always be done in conjunction with a transaction nVersion bump? If so,
then that's ok, if not, then we should have a whitelist.
The code to restrict the opcodes to the softfork-safe subset is trivial,
a GetOp() loop and a switch statement. It can always be removed later.
Something that comes to mind is if we do always bump nVersion then
OP_NOPx always will have a parallel "do-nothing" behavior, which means
EvalScript() will always have to have code enabling that backwards
compatible behavior.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000004e51d8d00eedb31ec1505d245f48960896b79f0e7193c2a
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 685 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-19 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-17 19:40 Gavin Andresen
2014-06-18 0:15 ` Peter Todd
2014-06-18 12:52 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-06-19 10:09 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2014-06-19 13:54 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-06-20 0:45 ` Peter Todd
2014-09-29 2:35 ` [Bitcoin-development] New opcodes and transaction version numbers (was 'relax the IsStandard rules for P2SH transactions') Peter Todd
2014-09-29 4:30 ` Alan Reiner
2014-09-29 5:35 ` Peter Todd
2014-06-18 7:42 ` [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: relax the IsStandard rules for P2SH transactions Wladimir
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140619100909.GA3544@savin \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gavin@bitcoinfoundation$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox