From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail•com>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt•hk>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
me@thomaskerin•io, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Two questions about segwit implementation
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 23:17:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d6766da-67fb-31e1-eceb-663bffeef74a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DD2C67C8-0DF6-4140-8427-19B7F28FA22C@xbt.hk>
Well, OK, then back to non standard stuff and bitcoin considers that an
OP_1 or empty scriptpubkey is something that can exist, sipa does not
like my questions on this list but this is a bit frightening in fact to
see that after 10 years an OP_1 scriptpubkey or empty one can be a use
case, thanks Thomas also, where all of this is clearly documented so
people don't bother the list not to produce approximative stuff remains
mysterious
Le 26/05/2019 à 19:24, Johnson Lau a écrit :
> Empty scriptSig doesn’t imply segwit input: if the previous scriptPubKey is OP_1 (which does not allow witness), it could still be spent with an empty scriptSig
>
> Similarly, a scriptSig looking like a spend of P2SH-segwit doesn’t imply segwit input: if the previous scriptPubKey is empty, it could be spent with a push of any non-zero value.
>
>> On 27 May 2019, at 1:09 AM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> I did not phrase correctly in fact, what I meant is: if the validator
>> sees empty or witness script in scriptSig, then this is a segwit input,
>> and doing this one by one the validator can associate the correct segwit
>> data to the correct segwit input, so 00 does not look to be needed
>>
>> Le 26/05/2019 à 18:28, Johnson Lau a écrit :
>>> This is not how it works. While the transaction creator may know which inputs are segwit, the validators have no way to tell until they look up the UTXO set.
>>>
>>> In a transaction, all information about an input the validators have is the 36-byte outpoint (txid + index). Just by looking at the outpoint, there is no way to tell whether it is segwit-enabled or not. So there needs to be a way to tell the validator that “the witness for this input is empty”, and it is the “00”.
>>>
>>>> On 27 May 2019, at 12:18 AM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail•com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ……. for the 00 number of witness
>>>> data for non segwit inputs the one that is doing the transaction knows
>>>> which inputs are segwit or not, then parsing the transaction you can
>>>> associate the correct input to the correct witness data, without the
>>>> need of 00, so I must be missing the use case
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-26 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-25 23:56 Aymeric Vitte
2019-05-26 14:33 ` Johnson Lau
2019-05-26 16:18 ` Aymeric Vitte
2019-05-26 16:28 ` Johnson Lau
2019-05-26 17:09 ` Aymeric Vitte
2019-05-26 17:24 ` Johnson Lau
2019-05-26 21:17 ` Aymeric Vitte [this message]
2019-05-26 17:54 ` Pieter Wuille
2019-05-26 19:34 ` Thomas Kerin
2019-05-27 7:26 ` Kostas Karasavvas
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=6d6766da-67fb-31e1-eceb-663bffeef74a@gmail.com \
--to=vitteaymeric@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=me@thomaskerin$(echo .)io \
--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