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
|
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 271CF92
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:26:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com
[209.85.213.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDF03E4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:26:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igdg1 with SMTP id g1so81158133igd.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=1Yd70tdsMyGvhYRYk9YcuyjlnqT6FEx3z3EqYXoQNKA=;
b=V/zoUrqNwReIkqeE20/dviRHX22Fr7hmTrv4ZpfycMvudAPg4ItD2EWkflPPtTwEzN
wH+5hNP32v05XMV5kxusAlYtDvGYi5SPQEpEoBgzzJTq3WIk8+09E8uDWURMjDxRkF8H
jcs3XVN444ze6H8+LH/fyN2WSIAQGZ6xXrnmLL/6Xt4meUau9ytpfhCu6lfLWHFADUv9
YtbIH6MfgjXcoy/NuyUFv1RBPrgfo2QNioTWB0KJJ/f1BX7pfF+BdhInWiSZyaAt51Tc
uYGF/ThCxss9qKStRPkZUvDz2urcuKvu1AN2qeCQy4XMB1jFeTRzpGPZScPatyNyrfS1
K9eA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.23.80 with SMTP id k16mr8957316igf.62.1445416007162; Wed,
21 Oct 2015 01:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.23.197 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 01:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgT4DU1MuOwo0Qr4yMNRamajD=KrOVP93pzApWMpry-Srg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALxbBHU+kdEAh_4+B663vknAAr8OKZpUzVTACORPZi47E=Ehkw@mail.gmail.com>
<201510210618.56159.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgT4DU1MuOwo0Qr4yMNRamajD=KrOVP93pzApWMpry-Srg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:26:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR7X2j9buFQXvgmWZCfoasRa=nLB5efnu-ZnqFZC+SeuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP] Normalized transaction IDs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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 Oct 2015 08:26:48 -0000
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm still sad that uniform segregated witeness is so hard to deploy,
> adding another id to every utxo set won't be a nice cost. :( But I
> have been trying for a long time to come up with anything better and
> not being successful.
Oh good. Luke solved it.
To deploy SW without a disruptive flag day this encoding could be used:
A new P2SH like scriptPubkey type is defined. In the soft-fork, the
scriptsig for this scriptPubkey is required to be empty.
Signatures are not covered under txid, but carried along side. Then
committed to in blocks in a separate hashtree.
The only disadvantage to the approach used in elements alpha that I
can come up with so far (in the few minutes since luke turned my can't
into a can) is that that the approach in EA did not disrupt the normal
relay handling process, and this would, since relay that transports
the extradata either needs to use a different hash that includes the
witness, or have a separate mechanism for witness transport.
|
