Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XQlw0-0003Vn-9A for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 23:31:52 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.171; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XQlvz-0002ku-8z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 23:31:52 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l13so1885428iga.10 for ; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 16:31:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.128.225 with SMTP id nr1mr19662174igb.19.1410132705938; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 16:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.82.72 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 16:31:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 01:31:45 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 (pieter.wuille[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 X-Headers-End: 1XQlvz-0002ku-8z Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Small update to BIP 62 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: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 23:31:52 -0000 On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> Not related to this change but the definition of rule 4 may not be >> sufficiently specific-- without a definition someone could reasonably >> reach a different conclusion about OP_1NEGATE being a "push >> operation", or might even decide any operation which added to the >> stack was a "push operation". > > Good catch - I'll write an update soon. >> Perhaps the rules should be reordered so that the applicable to all >> transactions ones are contiguous and first? > Ok. >>> The first six and part of the seventh can be fixed by extra consensus rules. >> >> This should clarify that the scriptPubkey can still specify rules that >> are inherently malleable [...] > I'll try to reword. I've sent out a new pull request (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/102/files) that: * Changes the order of the rules. * Adds more reference documentation about minimal pushes and number encodings. * Clarified that extra consensus rules cannot prevent someone from creating outputs whose spending transactions will be malleable. I haven't changed which rules are mandatory in v3, so this is a pure clarification & reorganization of the text. Any comments? -- Pieter