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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A268ACB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-yb0-f181.google.com (mail-yb0-f181.google.com
[209.85.213.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CF2164
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d69so38420035ybf.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to; bh=zKUQlqOSIPQ3AaXKxu9C2ZcOjg6/53T1ZjGDFxRLipk=;
b=vuJTirFsoDeUao7ySPqiiB7JSmGKnTAb/m14kCEVMVwOzEs/8xFlysnb7jQW8QeVLj
BzZFo7xlXrBNrWcpMqo14A9jFp9dWm3HLDM+oukfEDAUBdGhxTW2d4r7EWbihwC+7+jO
JK+4cJT8qT7VN+6xNvtLMt1c6qcmPME7PwIy2FmyJh5gBxlSYAOKyACCTMYfsx+zcHNo
PVT2gASQWCrKGJjPO7Cczpg1PzxiPk6yzMqvAfRQ6ChHpvimFILcUmpT0auesxRsrW17
AQzX/ODuxIkakZa3yygphsFwyG4yNYGhau9KdR5zwQU+pfkg0dMl2IKrrV2oaPY3sywB
mFUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=zKUQlqOSIPQ3AaXKxu9C2ZcOjg6/53T1ZjGDFxRLipk=;
b=N7cPkPcumU//vDHrO+i1VjuVQtgbL9b79NzS2DI7HDQfw1UCEg/Vdzc1YS7dIxZKZr
OI4pG72gkXxbTbnRCbbXefrQ+8EhkygC26EV9z5pefrEviTZ64XgQmhbAHpwC9dUxQWL
OtptUu6mUY8Mw6oceOtvrGLi1dDkDlOzIDCw/Ab9yu/Vmlxm6KrWz/ayhkreKan/wJYY
xGHjG2LZwj1xK8msq7Dq23gYKGES7gITMwnKHHDqFzr2scHjdRG7a6brhzXcKDZFEc6k
h9VwM/7eWaLvhbN/f5cbU9tJeatz3FBRWCXdWDob9jXWXZd0W/dsI/WlJrAqxWyxkwxU
CUaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMlMhBJaDFRXyDZcYoEYL1fUBReXfVdCWFKYJwF4d80rL2hSYHjfH5CCPKrBhtSA8W4ivdfghjL6lGWBg==
X-Received: by 10.37.231.199 with SMTP id e190mr3255560ybh.194.1474480891453;
Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.33.145 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSpnshZhS7N5R3Qsw_8=NN8sjYGwrnUpdwGzu2TG0-Qgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7844645.RLYLWYmWtM@garp>
<CAAS2fgSpnshZhS7N5R3Qsw_8=NN8sjYGwrnUpdwGzu2TG0-Qgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:30 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: WsEw8DfD8idjBNkLUgLZZmnEdNc
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT5izjzUVyd3-9sQEHx8rk8pEJWxT6-eDteuUkZdRokAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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] Requesting BIP assignment; Flexible Transactions.
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: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:01:33 -0000
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> BIP number for my FT spec.
This document does not appear to be concretely specified enough to
review or implement from it.
For example, it does not specify the serialization of "integer" (is it
a 32 bit word in network byte order or?) nor does it specify how the
presence of the optional fields are signaled nor the cardinality of
the inputs or outputs. For clearly variable length elements
('bytearray') no mention is made of their length encoding. etc.
Without information like this, I don't see how someone could
realistically begin reviewing this proposal.
The motivation seems unclear to me as well: The scheme is described as
'flexible' but it appears to remove flexibility from the existing
system. The "schema" appears to be hardcoded and never communicated.
If the goal is to simply have a more compact on the wire
representation, this could be done without changing the serialization
used for hashing or the serialization used for costing.
|
