Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20130213041209.GA28202@savin>
References: <20130212151108.GA639@savin>
	<CABsx9T1P=OC7amNeZivTVcQSb0+=FSKhvAB-XjDzkqq6bc07-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213041209.GA28202@savin>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:00:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3qgo-VC5YHTSLOH5rGdv5PP4e2V6qECQVfvMgJXFbx-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9399a4dad494204d59836a2
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: empty scriptPubKeys and OP_RETURN
 for marking unspendable txouts
Precedence: list

--14dae9399a4dad494204d59836a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

> So what exactly was the OP_RETURN bug anyway? I know it has something to
> do with not executing the scriptSig and scriptPubKey separately
> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58579.msg691432#msg691432) but
> commit 7f7f07 that you reference isn't in the tree, nor is 0.3.5 tagged.
>

It was fixed by Satoshi long ago, back when we used CVS I think.

The problem was how scripts were executed. They were concatenated together
and then run as a single unit. The now obsolete OP_CODESEPARATOR was put
between them to control what was hashed and what wasn't.

The obvious problem with that arrangement being that scriptSig ran first
(it has to, to push the signatures onto the stack), so nothing stopped you
setting a scriptSig to OP_RETURN and making the script evaluate to true,
always. A pretty amazing oversight given the thought and care that went
into Bitcoin generally, and its robustness since then.

The fix was to move to the current system whereby the two scripts are
executed independently but sharing a stack, and it's only the return value
of the scriptPubKey that matters.

The scripting system always struck me as a rather late addition to the
design. Satoshi admitted as much when he said that he added it after
encountering an explosion of special cases as he designed various types of
contracts. The fact that there's an obvious bug in CHECKMULTISIG is more
evidence of this part being a general rush job, along with Satoshis
willingness to disable much of its functionality later with the IsStandard
checks. Also the design of CHECKSIG is an obvious retrofit, it would have
made far more sense to decompose it, and we never found a use case for 99%
of the opcodes despite having successfully designed (redesigned?) all the
contract types he ever mentioned.

--14dae9399a4dad494204d59836a2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
So what exactly was the OP_RETURN bug anyway? I know it has something to<br=
>
do with not executing the scriptSig and scriptPubKey separately<br>
(<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D58579.msg691432#msg69=
1432" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D58579.msg=
691432#msg691432</a>) but<br>
commit 7f7f07 that you reference isn&#39;t in the tree, nor is 0.3.5 tagged=
.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra" style>It was fixed by Satoshi long ago, back when we used CVS I thi=
nk.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" style=
>The problem was how scripts were executed. They were concatenated together=
 and then run as a single unit. The now obsolete OP_CODESEPARATOR was put b=
etween them to control what was hashed and what wasn&#39;t.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" style=
>The obvious problem with that arrangement being that scriptSig ran first (=
it has to, to push the signatures onto the stack), so nothing stopped you s=
etting a scriptSig to OP_RETURN and making the script evaluate to true, alw=
ays. A pretty amazing oversight given the thought and care that went into B=
itcoin generally, and its robustness since then.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" style=
>The fix was to move to the current system whereby the two scripts are exec=
uted independently but sharing a stack, and it&#39;s only the return value =
of the scriptPubKey that matters.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" style=
>The scripting system always struck me as a rather late addition to the des=
ign. Satoshi admitted as much when he said that he added it after encounter=
ing an explosion of special cases as he designed various types of contracts=
. The fact that there&#39;s an obvious bug in CHECKMULTISIG is more evidenc=
e of this part being a general rush job, along with Satoshis willingness to=
 disable much of its functionality later with the IsStandard checks. Also t=
he design of CHECKSIG is an obvious retrofit, it would have made far more s=
ense to decompose it, and we never found a use case for 99% of the opcodes =
despite having successfully designed (redesigned?) all the contract types h=
e ever mentioned.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" style><br></div></div>

--14dae9399a4dad494204d59836a2--