From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt•hk>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit v2
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:09:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <442502AC-CC00-481C-A864-5E5F6F648276@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201704262001.10933.luke@dashjr.org>
> On 27 Apr 2017, at 04:01, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote:
>> I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet
>> upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the
>> commitment structure as suggested by another post.
>
> Fair enough, I guess. Although I think the dummy marker could actually be non-
> consensus critical so long as the hashing replaces it with a 0.
>
>> For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as that
>> should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you should
>> put it in witness instead.
>
> There are things scriptSig can do that witness cannot today - specifically add
> additional conditions under the signature. We can always obsolete scriptSig
> later, after segwit has provided an alternative way to do this.
You can do this with witness too, which is also cheaper. Just need to make sure the signature covers a special part of the witness. I will make a proposal to Litecoin soon, which allows signing and executing extra scripts in witness. Useful for things like OP_PUSHBLOCKHASH
>
>> Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so miners
>> can’t put garbage to legacy txs.
>
> They already can malleate transactions and add garbage to the blocks. I don't
> see the benefit here.
Witness is cheaper and bigger
>
> Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-26 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-20 20:28 Luke Dashjr
2017-04-26 8:51 ` praxeology_guy
2017-04-26 19:31 ` Johnson Lau
2017-04-26 20:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-04-26 20:09 ` Johnson Lau [this message]
2017-04-26 21:34 ` Russell O'Connor
2017-04-27 2:18 ` praxeology_guy
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=442502AC-CC00-481C-A864-5E5F6F648276@xbt.hk \
--to=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(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