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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 555FE723
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:28:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64D9DF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:28:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18CBD6175D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:28:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:28:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3922242.R3uioAF9MN@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKm3RXs_HAzGT3gz60kiB6FQnjpGRhfu6biwZ5a_TcPeaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMZUoKm3RXs_HAzGT3gz60kiB6FQnjpGRhfu6biwZ5a_TcPeaA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:29:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flexible Transactions.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:28:57 -0000
On Monday, 21 November 2016 10:54:19 CET Russell O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.
>
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The OP_CHECKSIG is the most well known and, as its name implies, it
> > validates a signature.
> > In the new version of 'script' (version 2) the data that is signed is
> > changed to be equivalent to the transaction-id. This is a massive
> > simplification and also the only change between version 1 and version 2
> > of script.
>
> I'm a fan of simplicity too; Unfortunately, your proposal above to change
> the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG is too naive.
Thanks for your email, Russell.
Unfortunately you waited 6 weeks with writing this and the problem you are
seeing has been fixed quite some time ago.
Thanks again for reviewing, though!
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
