Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A07B85 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:28:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com (mail-ob0-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6439F135 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:28:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbbj7 with SMTP id bj7so26240518obb.1 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:28:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=3j4i05qTmZK31EQBaUAejzvmNsXED2oKvb9PzwquFf8=; b=x8eoNdR9MikYvjJU2QwyN4QU918PmYb4Mrw0UEffdAZX6lnK4BfB+wUucZKn50AcAP Bg5WvUCf42tsBPshiBEsAtrfq8ahsB99IBnvOeMZrqA3IPpHTuJe5AOhvdGTURNDt78c 0Wb21YQACkFqf7Ol5tfQ97BN+GdxmYN4/sdVmzjfFzHKVlO8I1TiMLAp4CXmMky87Ozp 9e1TEkiCUnjVASF0PTPvDZ84Fe6XpKI2GPPZdZ592JXBBNyDDks3ArlBJjElDwbVGcj3 BEwBL/VqvO/zRh70NxI2TzlaNkUFvexBdevpbxxY/UFB6/fI32pF9Y323AxX2OV2R57j fE5w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.164.73 with SMTP id yo9mr21786113oeb.33.1448407713639; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:28:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.41.194 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:28:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:28:33 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _gzfXonjhjD5t0HDpr2ObSGSPbM Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b450b7e430826052551b301 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:31:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY or "Wildcard Inputs" or "Coalescing Transactions" X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:28:35 -0000 --047d7b450b7e430826052551b301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What is required to spend bitcoin is that input be provided to the UTXO script that causes it to return true. What Chris is proposing breaks the programmatic nature of the requirement, replacing it with a requirement that the secret be known. Granted, the secret is the only requirement in most cases, but there is no built-in assumption that the script always requires only that secret. This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be a signature of some kind of message to that effect. I imagine the cost of re-scanning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extra mining fee for any transaction that used this opcode. Please be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email makes clear. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY** > > > Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting > near near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links): > http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -- I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a techie? I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha). I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin. I also code for The Dollar Vigilante . "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi Nakamoto --047d7b450b7e430826052551b301 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What is required to spend bitcoin is that input = be provided to the UTXO script that causes it to return true.=C2=A0 What Ch= ris is proposing breaks the programmatic nature of the requirement, replaci= ng it with a requirement that the secret be known.=C2=A0 Granted, the secre= t is the only requirement in most cases, but there is no built-in assumptio= n that the script always requires only that secret.

This idea = could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all UTXOs that a= re of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be a signature = of some kind of message to that effect.=C2=A0 I imagine the cost of re-scan= ning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extra mining fee= for any transaction that used this opcode.

Please be blunt ab= out any of my own misunderstandings that this email makes clear.
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Tue, Nov 24, 20= 15 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wr= ote:
**OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY**
Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting n= ear near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links):
h= ttp://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




--
I like to provide some work at no charge to pr= ove my value. Do you need a techie?=C2=A0
I own Litmocracy and Meme Racing (in alpha).
I'm th= e webmaster for T= he Voluntaryist which now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante= .
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" -= Satoshi Nakamoto
--047d7b450b7e430826052551b301--