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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YEhTI-0007AZ-NW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:52:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f170.google.com ([74.125.82.170])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YEhTH-0001Yx-Js
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:52:36 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x3so8659695wes.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:52:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.205.163 with SMTP id lh3mr5522584wic.63.1422031949002;
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.11.170 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:52:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HgL_-PTfmS-kA00DfZiZ8uPFqQTytihY6o8De5KVvDThw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJna-HjwMRff_+7BvcR2YME9f2yUQPvfKOGZ1qq9d0nOGqORkg@mail.gmail.com>
<54C267A1.8090208@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQSAj=YHhtvy=MY9GvbEZNxtLUwzfrdPnSQBUKZYdj4oA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJna-HgL_-PTfmS-kA00DfZiZ8uPFqQTytihY6o8De5KVvDThw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:52:28 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSKBS9zCQqp+hJUF2Ro8LNw4s0=J08M=76sOJmNfpLptQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(gmaxwell[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: 1YEhTH-0001Yx-Js
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:52:36 -0000
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM, slush <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:
> 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.
Sure; will aggregate up the citations when I'm not travling later today.
> 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.
I'm not sure where the ^2 is coming from. So what I'd understand that
you'd do is stream in the input txid:vouts which you spend, then you'd
stream the actual inputs which would just be hashed and value
extracted (but no other verification), and you'd build a table of
txid:vout->value, then the actual transaction to be signed.
This should have O(inputs) hashing and communications overhead. Is
there a step I'm missing?
|
