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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <rusty@ozlabs.org>) id 1Z17ro-0005FT-IJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 06:46:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of ozlabs.org
designates 103.22.144.67 as permitted sender)
client-ip=103.22.144.67; envelope-from=rusty@ozlabs.org;
helo=ozlabs.org;
Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Z17rm-0007iV-MC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 06 Jun 2015 06:46:04 +0000
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id 792AE1401F6; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 16:45:55 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-sfpgciy9AzmtjEU5-uZY5KCAuS-SGsbff81w1dGVyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87k2vhfnx9.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAOG=w-sfpgciy9AzmtjEU5-uZY5KCAuS-SGsbff81w1dGVyBPg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 16:14:07 +0930
Message-ID: <87h9qlfia0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/)
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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.7 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1Z17rm-0007iV-MC
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [RFC] Canonical input and output ordering
in transactions
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, 06 Jun 2015 06:46:04 -0000
Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> writes:
> Rusty, this doesn't play well with SIGHASH_SINGLE which is used in
> assurance contracts among other things. Sometimes the ordering is set by
> the signing logic itself...
Ah, I forgot about that particular wart. Yech. Implies that you can
order inputs or outputs, not both.
Something like "outputs must be in order, inputs which do not
CHECK(MULTI)SIG_(VERIFY) a SIGHASH_SINGLE sig must be in order with
respect to each other". But that's much less trivial since it implies
script evaluation.
In other news, I noticed Kristov Atlas's concurrent proposal just after
I posted this (via reddit). He used far more words, but didn't note
this issue either AFAICT.
Thanks!
Rusty.
|
