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
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1TFUNr-0007CL-TB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:24:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-vc0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1TFUNn-000579-49
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:24:55 +0000
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so5498688vcq.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.89.168 with SMTP id bp8mr5147135veb.20.1348338285449; Sat,
22 Sep 2012 11:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.175.18 with HTTP; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 11:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpdJ9uCn4Du75mUmb6J7n+WAjQ+GY3LsAg5EESsWqfD8GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+8xBpczY1DkgmHsVL8m30JaM1d+FwN_gpBhq6DFScm1nvLF5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AEnkRqiEb2_COpQpLKkZfHf0fFgHmquO5oY4_Gh84k7cA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+8xBpdJ9uCn4Du75mUmb6J7n+WAjQ+GY3LsAg5EESsWqfD8GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:24:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AHwLCa3oMkXOTyMEMQ2mAwLH057krz+PBm57Jwa_K1a_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
(timon.elviejo[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: 1TFUNn-000579-49
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Atomic coin swapping?
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: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:24:56 -0000
On 9/22/12, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>>
>> Why "Signing the input scripts as well would obviously make it
>> impossible to construct a transaction"?
>
>
> As it states in the source code, signatures cannot sign themselves. If
> scriptSigs were included in the data that is being signed, the act of
> inserting the newly calculated signature for one input would break the
> signatures for all the others.
I see. By "input scripts" I thought you meant scriptPubKey rather than
scriptSigs. We only need to sign scriptPubKey. Right, Jeff?
> Yes, SIGHASH_ALL was the crucial piece I was missing.
Great, there's no need for an additional SIGHASH.
I guess you're implementing the simple case you describe first.
Do you plan to implement the more general case with n participants
instead of only 2 (a Ripple transaction)?
That would be awesome.
--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n
On 9/22/12, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Jorge Tim=F3n <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I'm very interested in this. I was expecting transitive/multi-hop
>> transactions (Ripple) with colored coins, and I don't understand why
>> is not possible.
>>
>> From https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts
>>
>> ---
>> SIGHASH_ALL: This is the default. It indicates that everything about
>
> Yes, SIGHASH_ALL was the crucial piece I was missing.
>
> I have updated the post to add a concrete example with as much detail
> as necessary for programmers to recreate. Review requested:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D112007.msg1212356#msg1212356
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik
> exMULTI, Inc.
> jgarzik@exmulti.com
>
--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n
|
