From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt•hk>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP141 segwit consensus rule update: extension of witness program definition
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:23:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D192E876-1A4F-4B06-86F6-54F1BDEC857D@xbt.hk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201606080729.24789.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1336 bytes --]
> On 8 Jun 2016, at 15:29, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:57:36 AM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Why not make it even bigger, e.g. 75 bytes?
>
> I don't see a sufficient answer to this question. Pieter explained why >75
> would be annoying, but 75 seems like it should be fine.
>
>> In any case, since scripts with a 1-byte push followed by a push of >40
>> bytes remain anyone-can-spend, we always have the option to redefine them
>> with a softfork.
>
> It's not that simple, since this is preventing use of the witness field for
> such scripts. With this limit in place, any such a softfork would suddenly
> require either two different witness commitments, or disabling the previous
> witness transaction format.
>
> Luke
This is exactly why I proposed to extend the definition. My initial proposal was extending it to 33 bytes to effectively allow 16*256 new script versions, assuming we will keep using 32 bytes program hash.
If someday 32 bytes hash is deemed to be unsafe, the txid would also be unsafe and a hard fork might be needed. Therefore, I don’t see how a witness program larger than 40 bytes would be useful in any case (as it is more expensive and takes more UTXO space). I think Pieter doesn’t want to make it unnecessarily lenient.
[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 671 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-08 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-08 5:57 Johnson Lau
2016-06-08 7:29 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-06-08 8:23 ` Johnson Lau [this message]
2016-06-08 16:45 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-06-12 14:40 ` 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=D192E876-1A4F-4B06-86F6-54F1BDEC857D@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