Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.110 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.110; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148110.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:41:31 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Message-ID: <20130729074131.GA23180@savin>
References: <CAPaL=UV9ytoDc-0U148QSbtq=QHFAY1N=nV_1h_dRW12F6YVhA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201307290517.54624.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJHLa0Oe4YT+DnEiVxN_tykMQ8YPtyKTf3K7kb0B-9CHoHSy7g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/04w6evG8XlLl3ft"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0Oe4YT+DnEiVxN_tykMQ8YPtyKTf3K7kb0B-9CHoHSy7g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Opcode whitelist for P2SH?
Precedence: list


--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:00:10AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:39:08 PM John Dillon wrote:
> >> What are your thoughts on creating a whitelist for specific opcodes th=
at
> >> would apply to scripts serialized using P2SH, retaining the existing
> >> standard whitelist for scriptPubKeys? (I would still recommend dropping
> >> pay-to-pubkey and pay-to-multisig due to their potential for dumping d=
ata
> >> in the UTXO set)
> >
> > This would be reasonable for miners, but for interoperability between w=
allets,
> > some specific standard forms would still be necessary without a much sm=
arter
> > solver (which would then expand the code required to implement a wallet=
, which
> > is unfortunate if not entirely necessary).
>=20
> Indeed.  Current designs are all based around pattern matching a
> script template.  Satoshi even described lightweight clients as
> needing no script engine at all, only the ability to match patterns.

We're talking about two use-cases here: wallets protected by
authorization tokens for multi-factor security, and allowing funds to be
controlled by oracles that attest that events have happened allowing the
funds to move.

The latter application especially demands a specialized wallet, yet can
only possibly work with non-standard script formats.

IMO bringing the issue of wallet standardization into this discussion is
kinda silly and premature; if you don't want to use those features, then
you're wallet can ignore them. As for the people that are, they can come
up with appropriate standards for their needs.

After all John's suggesting only allowing the loosened IsStandard()
rules within P2SH, so until the txout is spent all *any* wallet sees is
a P2SH address with no information as to what scriptPubKey is needed to
spend it.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000220b76f98fc9414043f765ec48dba3fb556e096caffbaae8ec

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR9hyrAAoJECSBQD2l8JH76FEH/AuCpPc+tspYn0p4kCJiXwNI
BHzHp5Puwy/VNoiLLE81klkn6gwrNuKlKnqhTOfGV3enFFFS18sw3VWYmBJSU0pd
O0naU5y72sWtc2/d59diQxKnJuM9gXei5t+M3FJ1HcL6pWA7D0ca0xUvZFR5gWDV
EUQeR279A82RKim3KaCBmn5ScJUP1f6S53eRbG3NeDzu/dlKJYgr24J9Z/uGqzqp
Z/EsYZSJMvOzt8UGPr3eC+f5P36ql9u65y/Sh7yPgKH690owzQrs/lZl+2zjDFs6
UxjuN8m2LsL8lEtFjX8ahha+KnZ+rnogEPdtO4+Kgn5ytnt1fbeBBuLqpdQ+hEc=
=J707
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/04w6evG8XlLl3ft--