From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Small update to BIP 62
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:34:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBh5TXhKM_oxQpHUw-kLiQmyxCTO4nAO2jbnLUEQb=bdBA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSPe=dTayVXz8uFHQN+Sna7+zDcYKJL6UpuJOTq7H6fKg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com> wrote:
> Not related to this change but the definition of rule 4 may not be
> sufficiently specific-- without a definition someone could reasonably
> reach a different conclusion about OP_1NEGATE being a "push
> operation", or might even decide any operation which added to the
> stack was a "push operation".
Good catch - I'll write an update soon.
> Any particular reason to enforce 2 and 4 but not also 5? Violation of
> 5 is already non-standard and like 2,4 should be safely enforceable.
Perhaps we can go further, and include 6 as well? I see zero use cases
for zero-padded numbers, as their interpretation is already identical
to the non-padded case. I wouldn't include 1 (as it would break a
large amount of wallets today), 3 (which may have a use case in more
complex scripts with conditionals) or 7 (the superfluous element
consumed by CHECKMULTISIG could potentially be used for something in
the future).
> Perhaps the rules should be reordered so that the applicable to all
> transactions ones are contiguous and first?
Ok.
>> The first six and part of the seventh can be fixed by extra consensus rules.
>
> This should clarify that the scriptPubkey can still specify rules that
> are inherently malleable-- e.g. require the input stack contain two
> pushes which OP_ADD to 11. Or a more elaborate one-- a 1 of 2 check
> multisig where the pubkey not selected for signing is selected by a
> push in the signature. The current text seems to ignore isomorphisms
> of this type. ... they're not important for what the BIP is trying to
> achieve, but the document shouldn't cause people to not think that
> sort of thing exists.
I'll try to reword.
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-03 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-18 15:14 Pieter Wuille
2014-07-18 15:39 ` Mike Hearn
2014-07-18 15:45 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-07-18 17:25 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-07-18 18:10 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-07-18 20:56 ` Wladimir
2014-07-18 22:03 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-07-19 1:28 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-07-19 4:38 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-07-19 6:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-07-19 8:34 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-07-19 19:08 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-07-19 14:46 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-07-18 20:51 ` Wladimir
2014-09-01 20:48 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-09-03 16:34 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2014-09-07 23:31 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-09-12 16:35 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-09-13 22:45 ` 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='CAPg+sBh5TXhKM_oxQpHUw-kLiQmyxCTO4nAO2jbnLUEQb=bdBA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gmaxwell@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