diff options
| author | Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> | 2015-12-10 08:26:04 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-12-10 08:26:05 +0000 |
| commit | 80a114c43b6ba18803072fea427a344025f5951a (patch) | |
| tree | ff070d5acaebf479493145283a13b29b3464b579 /4a/d05e6e86c6d6f22c9127c9867289544bec8527 | |
| parent | 2f43b79e8a19d096950a2a5c0cd2fe080b3ae5d0 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-80a114c43b6ba18803072fea427a344025f5951a.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-80a114c43b6ba18803072fea427a344025f5951a.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness features wish list
Diffstat (limited to '4a/d05e6e86c6d6f22c9127c9867289544bec8527')
| -rw-r--r-- | 4a/d05e6e86c6d6f22c9127c9867289544bec8527 | 106 |
1 files changed, 106 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/4a/d05e6e86c6d6f22c9127c9867289544bec8527 b/4a/d05e6e86c6d6f22c9127c9867289544bec8527 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cf948f6fe --- /dev/null +++ b/4a/d05e6e86c6d6f22c9127c9867289544bec8527 @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ +Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B55AE23 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:26:05 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com + [209.85.213.180]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D60ACE5 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:26:04 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ph11so10136226igc.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:26:04 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject + :from:to:cc:content-type; + bh=wr+aSn/S3CxcfBYtJHM4zKSJGpORzXbeUEmIpTrDfH8=; + b=JPILHrBE/rUs4hOOOaSYbzRDjn7UbUz/SM7JVaS1tNlcHIXQlJhienYwjLlpDlYagV + Ia76Rclo6xVKdIFgBK7u6p3RdMeaMJchovWv6zuK/VzD0a1zWWEw9QufCBM2Pfb27Ola + +qV5XVDZY//p0aIkTdjfYKnGgmSIrLmOQMlH4KZexJJK9HaJFUr31JYdngpzxVHUbvax + u84M1THDKWj/Jv1vt/lFh8jAYrTcZl9PZsG0hZEOYraxsZoGy9SlqtvYX2jmDqC3zAlf + h3Wzjw6ZCtsKBfXruswTXJFqPsYq+vKdcotEjb1WfDjkDCssdUaCQRXEQu25aOrhNZU5 + ItmQ== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.50.56.114 with SMTP id z18mr14705062igp.62.1449735964412; + Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:26:04 -0800 (PST) +Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com +Received: by 10.107.192.70 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 00:26:04 -0800 (PST) +In-Reply-To: <b13f6152767473dcf44a1d8965fdd32c@xbt.hk> +References: <b13f6152767473dcf44a1d8965fdd32c@xbt.hk> +Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:26:04 +0000 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: E7pjeHmCc0lNYzWkHDsZkyxILss +Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR0X1+-0UTxFWeRba84q3nz1aNHgP4jyw1Gxm+QxH3igg@mail.gmail.com> +From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> +To: jl2012@xbt.hk +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness features wish list +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:26:05 -0000 + +On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:47 AM, jl2012--- via bitcoin-dev +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> It seems the current consensus is to implement Segregated Witness. SW opens +> many new possibilities but we need a balance between new features and +> deployment time frame. I'm listing by my priority: + +> 2. Deployment time frame: I prefer as soon as possible, even if none of the following new features are implemented. + +Thanks, I agree there. + +A point to keep in mind: Segregated Witness was specifically designed +to make script changes / improvements / additions / total rewrites no +harder to do _after_ SW then they would be do do along with it. For +many people the "ah ha! lets do this" was realizing it could be a +pretty clean soft-fork. For me, it was realizing that we could +structure Segwit in a way that radically simply future script updates +... and in doing so avoid a getting trapped by a rush to put in every +script update someone wants. + +This is achieved by having the 'version' byte(s) at the start of the +witness program. If the witness program prefix is unrecognized it +means RETURN TRUE. This recaptures the behavior that seems to have +been intended by OP_VER in the earliest versions of the software, but +actually works instead of giving every user the power to hardfork the +system at any time. :) This escapes much of the risk in script +changes, as we no longer need to worry about negation, or other +interactions potentially breaking things. A new version flag can have +its whole design crafted as if it were being created on a clean slate. + +Optimizing layout and such I think makes sense, but I think we should +consider any script enhancements completely off the table for SW; +otherwise the binding will delay deployment and increase complexity. I +want most of those things too (a couple I disagree with) and a few of +them we could do quite quickly-- but no need to bind them up; post SW +and esp with version bits we could deploy them quite rapidly and on +their own timeframes. + + +> Multiplication and division may still considered to be risky and not very useful? + +Operations like these make sense with fixed with types, when they are +over arbitrary bignums, they're a complexity nightmare... as +demonstrated by Bitcoin. :) + + +RE: OP_DUPTOALTSTACK yea, I've wanted that several times (really I've +been sad that there isn't just a stack flag on every manipulation +instruction). + |