Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fork of invalid blocks due to BIP66 violations

From: Tier Nolan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 02:32:16 +0100

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Justus Ranvier <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think the problem is tractable if some reasonable assumptions are made
> about the ability of SPV clients to perform validity checks that don't
> involve any state outside a single transaction (or block):
>
> https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60
>
>
I agree, it is definitely tractable.

If Bitcoin was being designed from scratch, it could be made even easier.

As things stand, the extra commitment information needs to be added to
extra trees, which themselves need to be checked.

The "prover", in your example, should ideally store additional meta-data
along with each block.

If P2SH was made mandatory, then much of the transaction validation could
be performed on the transaction alone.

Both the signature and the public key would be included in the spending
transaction.