1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
|
Return-Path: <achow101-lists@achow101.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80FD1D2A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:32:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.132])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6AB165
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:32:39 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:32:33 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=achow101.com;
s=protonmail; t=1534192357;
bh=jdQgVNtF1vdEh7O/CaY1QvSAe9gP1CvWE3LoQMmJMTI=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID:
From;
b=E5yULMvbj7sCZSE9ORUzJD0l+9AAwWGsbhfyJ4TViWdTDwB4LIH9OOq2uc8wTTOZu
rbDY8Mvc8GHCMhhHb7l3xvm4XleWLLYTtfB+HxD+aYdU+5S08ISufva9sSQxHZ5LwB
dRfGTSA39yEbDzhvp8t0GjeA4yxumm2s4cvayt6M=
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: Achow101 <achow101-lists@achow101.com>
Reply-To: Achow101 <achow101-lists@achow101.com>
Message-ID: <7A_00K2wcfdgZMimY9aZ4gUFWyVIPOVrnueAFAosM-S-gIIoHXez6v5GcC8OrfTULz0NZ6n1g3T9jfVbgBvU_jKbgmNd-zlVqQVOC00NphA=@achow101.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBgf-qSh0UVZF5RZnO+nygF-HN9=LL1gxE1JfXKrQhBbmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBgf-qSh0UVZF5RZnO+nygF-HN9=LL1gxE1JfXKrQhBbmw@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: VjS95yl5HLFwBfNLRqi61OdL1ERZPmvMbZRH2ZcBR7SKVUVYPgv7VJsV9uoyC4vIfjYnW8hPXGuLTycZbh49Zw==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Witness serialization in PSBT non-witness UTXOs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:32:40 -0000
Hi,
Since the BIP is already in proposed status, I think that we should specify=
the non-witness utxo to just be "witness or non-witness" serialization. Th=
is maintains compatibility with things that have already implemented but al=
so maintains the forwards compatibility that is needed.
Andrew
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Me=
ssage =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
On August 13, 2018 11:56 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> BIP174 currently specifies that non-witness UTXOs (the transactions
> being spent by non-witness inputs) should be serialized in network
> format.
>
> I believe there are two issues with this.
>
> 1. Even in case the transaction whose output being spent itself has a
> witness, this witness is immaterial to PSBT. It's only there to be
> able to verify the txid commits to the output/amount being spent,
> which can be done without witness.
>
> 2. "Network format" is a bit ambiguous. We can imagine a future
> softfork that introduces a new type of witness. Network format could
> be interpreted as including that new witness type, which is clearly
> unnecessary (by the above argument), and would gratuitously break
> compatibility with existing signers if implemented pedantically.
>
> So my suggestion is to update the specification to state that
> non-witness UTXOs must be serialized without witness. If it's too lat=
e
> for that, it should instead be updated to explicitly specify with or
> witnout witness, but it's safe to drop the witness.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
