MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: marek@palatinus.cz
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQSAj=YHhtvy=MY9GvbEZNxtLUwzfrdPnSQBUKZYdj4oA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJna-HjwMRff_+7BvcR2YME9f2yUQPvfKOGZ1qq9d0nOGqORkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C267A1.8090208@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQSAj=YHhtvy=MY9GvbEZNxtLUwzfrdPnSQBUKZYdj4oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:18:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJna-HgL_-PTfmS-kA00DfZiZ8uPFqQTytihY6o8De5KVvDThw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE
Precedence: list

--001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is unreasonable. There is a straight-forward soft-fork
> approach which is safe (e.g. no risk of invalidating existing
> transactions). Yes, it means that you need to use newly created
> addresses to get coins that use the new signature type...


Can you send me any reference about this? Of course if that solves the
problem, hard fork would not be necessary anymore. I'm just not aware of
any.

Can you help me understand whats taking 40 minutes here? Thats a
> surprisingly high number, and so I'm wondering if I'm not missing
> something there.
>
>
To sign transaction with hundreds of inputs on device with limited memory
capabilities, I need to stream all previous transactions into device, for
every signed input.

That means roughly 200^2 transaction verifications for 200 inputs to sign.
Very slow, but does not limit the device for any particular size of signed
transaction.

Marek

--001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:gmaxwell@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gmaxwell@gmail.com<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think this is unr=
easonable. There is a straight-forward soft-fork<br>
approach which is safe (e.g. no risk of invalidating existing<br>
transactions). Yes, it means that you need to use newly created<br>
addresses to get coins that use the new signature type...</blockquote><div>=
<br></div><div>Can you send me any reference about this? Of course if that =
solves the problem, hard fork would not be necessary anymore. I&#39;m just =
not aware of any.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Can yo=
u help me understand whats taking 40 minutes here? Thats a<br>
surprisingly high number, and so I&#39;m wondering if I&#39;m not missing<b=
r>
something there.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><=
br></div><div>To sign transaction with hundreds of inputs on device with li=
mited memory capabilities, I need to stream all previous transactions into =
device, for every signed input.</div><div><br></div><div>That means roughly=
 200^2 transaction verifications for 200 inputs to sign. Very slow, but doe=
s not limit the device for any particular size of signed transaction.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>Marek</div></div></div></div>

--001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568--