From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Stephen Morse <stephencalebmorse@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Build your own nHashType
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:29:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP12kZ8vRAo=feprJ9_oRXUPKJ=iF6kZdxxbai=TxjzM9g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABHVRKTNFoLm9LEO=ctT_UP9zW7QOMQzVXitKC=PAzj=HG9OHg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1713 bytes --]
Hi Stephen,
It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure that all the combinations make
sense. Excluding the connected output script or value but still signing the
prev tx hash appears pointless: the script cannot change anyway, and you
still need to know what it is to actually calculate the inputs to it, so
what is the point of this?
I also worry that quite a few of these combinations could be unexpectedly
dangerous. If you don't sign the prevout hash or value and combine it with
a regular pay-to-address output then you've effectively written a blank
cheque that can be used by anyone, to claim any money ever sent to that
address ... no? And then any p2p node or miner could do so, making the
transaction pretty useless.
That isn't inherently a problem as long as people understand which
combinations have what effects or cannot be used for various reasons. But
it would need good documentation and careful thought to explore each
possibility people might use.
I'll leave the soft fork business to one side for now. I think any change
in CHECKSIG or new version of it would likely be ready around the same time
as the hard fork we need for changing the block size limit anyway, and it's
much cleaner to do it that way.
The most important change that we need in sighash calculation, IMO, is
ensuring that you don't have to hash data over and over again without a
good reason. The current sighash definition is unfortunate because it's
possible to make small transactions that involve hashing huge amounts of
data. It's not clear to me that your proposal fixes that: ideally there
would be one exactly one sighash for one transaction no matter how many
checksigs are involved in verifying it.
thanks,
-mike
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1944 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-09 11:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-08 19:50 Stephen Morse
2015-04-09 11:29 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
2015-04-09 14:10 ` Stephen Morse
2015-04-09 14:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-04-09 17:28 ` Peter Todd
2015-04-10 2:56 ` Stephen Morse
2015-04-18 23:33 ` Peter Todd
2015-04-09 14:45 ` Mike Hearn
2015-04-15 3:34 ` Gregory Maxwell
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='CANEZrP12kZ8vRAo=feprJ9_oRXUPKJ=iF6kZdxxbai=TxjzM9g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=stephencalebmorse@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