Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Standard Unstructured Annex

From: Peter Todd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:59:07 +0000

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 12:25:08PM -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> Ah nevermind, I get it now.
> 
> The contrapositive of this proposed standardness rule is that if one annex
> is empty, then all annexes must be empty.  Therefore if on participants
> signs an empty annex, then standardness would imply that all the annexes
> must be empty.

You're almost correct.

There is a consensus distinction between having an annex, and not having
an annex at all. That means a zero-byte annex is different from not
having an annex at all.

So with my proposed rule, inputs can either have no annex at all (the
standard status quo), or an annex of zero or more bytes.

If any input has an annex, *all* inputs must have an annex. However, for
efficiency, they're allowed to have a completely empty, zero-byte,
annex. So basically an empty annex is just the defined way for an input
to sign their approval of the use of annexes in that transaction (and
subsequent tx pinning risk).

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/aBBAe265_h9A_lNz%40petertodd.org.