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 <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YsdJA-0006Vm-BW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:31:12 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YsdJ9-0004Ye-Jn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:31:12 +0000 Received: by obcus9 with SMTP id us9so38822885obc.2 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:31:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.0.75 with SMTP id 72mr530669oia.131.1431549066164; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.94.36 with HTTP; Wed, 13 May 2015 13:31:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OU-fdTrKRkni4xmmY5uBVWS0KJ_2NVh6k1tcMSGTPp+4Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALxbBHUnt7ToVK9reH6W6uT4HV=7NbxGHyNWWa-OEHg+Z1+qOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg+sBggj382me1ATDx4SS9KHVfvX5KH7ZhLHN6B+2_a+Emw1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-z3OV1WEDEV+X7gNVx+qBMt4jpSHFKXm3dxUrUyBEJrCNDSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE-z3OU-fdTrKRkni4xmmY5uBVWS0KJ_2NVh6k1tcMSGTPp+4Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 13:31:06 -0700 Message-ID: <CAPg+sBixpKQfsazHyhiF60HYTk9_U0aBAqU=4P+R+HDMA2jWKg@mail.gmail.com> From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137a5049140130515fc7db5 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YsdJ9-0004Ye-Jn Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP] Normalized Transaction IDs 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: Wed, 13 May 2015 20:31:12 -0000 --001a1137a5049140130515fc7db5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote: > After more thought, I think I came up with a clearer description of the > recursive version. > > The simple definition is that the hash for the new signature opcode should > simply assume that the normalized txid system was used since the > beginning. All txids in the entire blockchain should be replaced with the > "correct" values. > > This requires a full re-index of the blockchain. You can't work out what > the TXID-N of a transaction is without knowning the TXID-N of its parents, > in order to do the replacement. > > The non-recursive version can only handle refunds one level deep. > This was what I was suggesting all along, sorry if I wasn't clear. -- Pieter --001a1137a5049140130515fc7db5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Tier Nolan <span dir=3D"l= tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:tier.nolan@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">tier.nola= n@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class= =3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8= ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>After= more thought, I think I came up with a clearer description of the recursiv= e version.<br><br>The simple definition is that the hash for the new signat= ure opcode should simply assume that the normalized txid system was used si= nce the beginning.=A0 All txids in the entire blockchain should be replaced= with the "correct" values.<br><br>This requires a full re-index = of the blockchain.=A0 You can't work out=20 what the TXID-N of a transaction is without knowning the TXID-N of its=20 parents, in order to do the replacement.<br><br>The non-recursive version c= an only handle refunds one level deep.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br= ></div><div>This was what I was suggesting all along, sorry if I wasn't= clear.<br><br>-- <br></div><div>Pieter<br>=A0<br></div></div></div></div> --001a1137a5049140130515fc7db5--