Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.102 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.102; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148102.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:13:13 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20141104191313.GA5493@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjygohgFf2hE9cGH3ZmV0MaeniZDDNO+hFxOxo-s_d81A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjygohgFf2hE9cGH3ZmV0MaeniZDDNO+hFxOxo-s_d81A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP62 and future script upgrades
Precedence: list


--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:29:46AM -0800, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> one of the rules in BIP62 is the "clean stack" requirement, which
> makes passing more inputs to a script than necessary illegal.
>=20
> Unfortunately, this rule needs an exception for P2SH scripts: the test
> can only be done after (and not before) the second stage evaluation.
> Otherwise it would reject all spends from P2SH (which rely on
> "superfluous" inputs to pass data to the second stage).
>=20
> I submitted a Pull Request to clarify this in BIP62:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/115
>=20
> However, this also leads to the interesting observation that the
> clean-stack rule is incompatible with future P2SH-like constructs -
> which would be very useful if we'd ever want to deploy a "Script 2.0".
> Any such upgrade would suffer from the same problem as P2SH, and
> require an exception in the clean-stack rule, which - once deployed -
> is no longer a softfork.
>=20
> Luke suggested on the pull request to not apply this rule on every
> transaction with nVersion >=3D 3, which indeed solves the problem. I
> believe this can easily be generalized: make the (non mandatory) BIP62
> rules only apply to transaction with strict nVersion=3D=3D3, and not to
> higher ones. The higher ones are non-standard anyway, and shouldn't be
> used before there is a rule that applies to them anyway - which could
> include some or all of BIP62 if wanted at that point still.
>=20
> Opinions?

I agree with Luke: make the rules only apply to transactions with a
strict nVersion=3D=3D3. If we want to extend that later we can do so in
another soft-fork.


On another topic, I'm skeptical of the choice of nVersion=3D=3D3 - we'll
likely end up doing more block.nVersion increases in the future, and
there's no reason to think they'll have anything to do with
transactions. No sense creating a rule that'll be so quickly broken.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000002986604739bc94cc42d5c6adf75186e80ba3dbb501a076d

--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=eR2j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--