From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:13:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjygohgFf2hE9cGH3ZmV0MaeniZDDNO+hFxOxo-s_d81A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2014 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:29:46AM -0800, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> one of the rules in BIP62 is the "clean stack" requirement, which
> makes passing more inputs to a script than necessary illegal.
>
> Unfortunately, this rule needs an exception for P2SH scripts: the test
> can only be done after (and not before) the second stage evaluation.
> Otherwise it would reject all spends from P2SH (which rely on
> "superfluous" inputs to pass data to the second stage).
>
> I submitted a Pull Request to clarify this in BIP62:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/115
>
> However, this also leads to the interesting observation that the
> clean-stack rule is incompatible with future P2SH-like constructs -
> which would be very useful if we'd ever want to deploy a "Script 2.0".
> Any such upgrade would suffer from the same problem as P2SH, and
> require an exception in the clean-stack rule, which - once deployed -
> is no longer a softfork.
>
> Luke suggested on the pull request to not apply this rule on every
> transaction with nVersion >= 3, which indeed solves the problem. I
> believe this can easily be generalized: make the (non mandatory) BIP62
> rules only apply to transaction with strict nVersion==3, and not to
> higher ones. The higher ones are non-standard anyway, and shouldn't be
> used before there is a rule that applies to them anyway - which could
> include some or all of BIP62 if wanted at that point still.
>
> Opinions?
I agree with Luke: make the rules only apply to transactions with a
strict nVersion==3. If we want to extend that later we can do so in
another soft-fork.
On another topic, I'm skeptical of the choice of nVersion==3 - we'll
likely end up doing more block.nVersion increases in the future, and
there's no reason to think they'll have anything to do with
transactions. No sense creating a rule that'll be so quickly broken.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000002986604739bc94cc42d5c6adf75186e80ba3dbb501a076d
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-04 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-04 13:29 Pieter Wuille
2014-11-04 13:38 ` Mike Hearn
2014-11-04 13:50 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-11-04 14:01 ` Gavin Andresen
2014-11-04 19:13 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2014-11-04 19:56 ` Jeff Garzik
2014-11-04 20:00 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-11-04 20:07 ` Peter Todd
2014-11-05 7:53 ` Pieter Wuille
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=20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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