Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qx2Kw-000761-Gc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:45:06 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Qx2Kv-000577-SC for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:45:06 +0000 Received: by fxg11 with SMTP id 11so4342824fxg.34 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:44:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.22.8 with SMTP id l8mr2140370fab.105.1314387899612; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.20.6 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:44:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:44:59 -0400 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Qx2Kv-000577-SC Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to schedule a blockchain split? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:45:06 -0000 > Whitelisting the basic CHECKMULTISIG form (assuming it can be made to > work) seems uncontroversial, why not do it today? That seems like the right way forward. I just wrote a unit test and stepped through the CHECKMULTISIG code to see exactly what the bug is, and the offending line is: 797 int isig = ++i; 798 i += nSigsCount; It should be just int isig = i; The result is CHECKMULTISIG expects one extra item on the stack, so the workaround would be a standard transaction type of the form: scriptSig: OP_0 sig1...m scriptPubKey: m pubkey1...n n OP_CHECKMULTISIG -- -- Gavin Andresen