From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille•net>
To: Karl-Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage•co.jp>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-0322 (generic signmessage) improvements
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 22:57:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Xpjf4qIbUPHa_K-yS1GRlsG4rVXBR9OHgzsxjgABhw0hg7jPFn4l4wwgVH_1iRVR5jFDK2cUb0qsbA1FQKiQZRTFPh77MGibgaVUaVbB_Ng=@wuille.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALJw2w4bFp8qcxNzz7hn_ZeGG8WWTPu-mRv6A4cPt66EHimyeg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sunday, December 20, 2020 9:37 PM, Karl-Johan Alm via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to brush up the BIP. For what it's
> worth, I am all for these changes, and I see them as clear
> improvements all around.
>
> IIRC Pieter was the one who originally suggested the two-checks
> approach (invalid, inconclusive, valid) which is being modified here,
> so would be good if you chimed in (or not -- which I'll assume means
> you don't mind).
I agree with the idea of permitting incomplete validators to return inconclusive as well. That doesn't really reduce the functionality (given that "inconclusive" was already a potential result), and it obviously makes it much more accessible to a variety of software.
This suggestion breaks the original use of inconclusive though: the ability to detect that future features are used in the signature. The idea was to use divergence between "consensus valid" and "standardness valid" as a proxy for future extensions to be detected (e.g. OP_NOPn, future witness versions, ...). I think it's undesirable that these things now become unconditionally invalid (until the BIP is updated, but once that happens old validators will give a different result than new ones).
Since the BIP no longer relies on a nebulous concept of standardness, and instead specifically defines which standardness features are to be considered, this seems easy to fix: whenever validation fails due to any of those, require reporting inconclusive instead of invalid (unless of course something actually invalid also happens). In practice I guess you'd implement that (in capable validators) by still doing validation twice, once with all features enabled that distinguish between valid/invalid, and if valid, again but now with the features enabled that distinguish between valid and (invalid or inconclusive).
Cheers,
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-21 22:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-18 15:27 Andrew Poelstra
2020-12-21 5:37 ` Karl-Johan Alm
2020-12-21 22:57 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2020-12-22 0:22 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-12-22 1:11 ` Andrew Poelstra
2020-12-23 15:55 ` Andrew Poelstra
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='Xpjf4qIbUPHa_K-yS1GRlsG4rVXBR9OHgzsxjgABhw0hg7jPFn4l4wwgVH_1iRVR5jFDK2cUb0qsbA1FQKiQZRTFPh77MGibgaVUaVbB_Ng=@wuille.net' \
--to=bitcoin-dev@wuille$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=karljohan-alm@garage$(echo .)co.jp \
/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