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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1ROFXA-0007HW-0h
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:18:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1ROFX9-0004Kq-BL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:18:11 +0000
Received: by faat2 with SMTP id t2so3127680faa.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:18:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.144.2 with SMTP id si2mr2789688lab.8.1320873484983; Wed,
09 Nov 2011 13:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.2.231 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:18:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E390E6EB-BE00-4F96-A4FB-05C39E2036BB@ceptacle.com>
References: <BD206D96-C458-4DD7-92F6-32AE476C259A@ceptacle.com>
<CABsx9T3T7UZ-G9wsb_NDMBYpnnp9XBnjULmVVDgVXzEaUKn=5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T3ESoZ21h_V0a8PZAN4MS+KRZ8eVjKc47p9wgJmH0jt-g@mail.gmail.com>
<E390E6EB-BE00-4F96-A4FB-05C39E2036BB@ceptacle.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:18:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T2fGcLk477QagbyyPd3cFsOrLKRqG9_GKLf9nirh=Nocg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= <gronager@ceptacle.com>
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1ROFX9-0004Kq-BL
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig,
op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:18:12 -0000
One more thought on putting arbitrary stuff in the scriptSig:
Miners could decide to revolt and remove the extra scriptSig
information before including the transaction in their blocks. They'd
still get the full transaction fee, and the transaction would still
validate so the block would be accepted by everybody else.
Come to think of it, if a node relaying transactions wanted to save
bandwidth costs or be annoying, it could also strip off the extra
information before forwarding it, so this isn't a reliable
communication mechanism. It is probably a much better idea to use
another protocol to gather signatures.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
