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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 565EA1BB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:57:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED653151
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:57:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB14638A0077;
Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:56:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171002:mark@friedenbach.org::5c5+8eeKM5VmdPJI:a1K/0
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171002:jl2012@xbt.hk::2vF/yQJjqdzlspAJ:KNMF
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171002:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::cAygigUfL3hb+130:c3G7h
X-Hashcash: 1:25:171002:roconnor@blockstream.io::tssMEFpW/NgrCDeW:15FD
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:56:27 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.12.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.34; x86_64; ; )
References: <201710010113.30518.luke@dashjr.org>
<30B31B43-B603-4793-BDFB-B7E25FD96D1B@xbt.hk>
<50CA8523-3D1A-409E-9B7D-51EA5FC4B898@friedenbach.org>
In-Reply-To: <50CA8523-3D1A-409E-9B7D-51EA5FC4B898@friedenbach.org>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201710020256.27964.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Version 1 witness programs (first draft)
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, 02 Oct 2017 02:57:29 -0000
On Monday 02 October 2017 12:35:38 AM Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > b. OP_RETURNTRUE (Luke). I proposed this in an earlier version of BIP114
> > but now I think it doesn=E2=80=99t interact well with signature aggrega=
tion, and
> > I worry that it would have some other unexpected effects. c. Generalised
> > NOP method: user has to provide the returned value, so even VERIFY-type
> > code could do anything
>=20
> I see no reason to do either. Gate new behavior based on script execution
> flags, which are set based on the script version. Script versions not
> understood are treated as "return true" to begin with. The interpreter
> isn't even going to try to decode the script according to the old rules,
> let alone try to execute it, so there's no reason for the old soft-fork
> compatability tricks.
>=20
> The new soft-fork trick is that you increment the script version number.=
=20
> That is all.
This breaks parallel softfork deployments.
> > b. scriptWitCode: extra scripts are put in some fixed location in witne=
ss
> > (Johnson). This makes sure static analysability. c. Extra-data as script
> > in OP_CHECKSIG (Luke)
>=20
> Propose these as their own script updates. Script versioning makes such
> new features cheap. There's no reason to create some sort of complex
> omnibus overhaul that does everything.
Only if there's common code to implement both versions, which doesn't work =
if=20
the changes from A to B to C are drastic. To avoid such drastic changes, th=
e=20
overall design/layout needs to at least be planned to cover the desired use=
=20
cases in advance.
Luke
|
