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
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1V3gVI-0001CR-5Q
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:00:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 74.125.82.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.52; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-wg0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1V3gVF-0002w4-4W
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:00:20 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so4546609wgh.7
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=IQeht9R0XucHy33mylRli0tkvJF4LjT1qMd9i2LkD7g=;
b=DCnENSbS7Y48KS8CfS9dubtGGitNS7Ve7uk4EopSeYXKZ4yqsZcpL9ryZJip12DfIj
LD6YFFk24MEOkaJ4Jxl3lompqm7OQaXR7O/VUWHrXlHxQ+qMDfbsHtdXGe8wxKjQ8OGr
qmszcHvrCie6vpni8ag1jpLg421n3AP7oejgVlMLtU/cWScJs0UUC/fEuRSUhL2Bqgkn
YEDyqs5EeK1KhcSD+zIeGdx0ZuIWojTdnnNg9egsGMtEsNkrrZq98We+0DdjAb6724ye
H/93gpT9TYwxGW+zpCxvKmR6CzWX1M8sfqHrbeVBgjbZ01lcc496NQu8q1iobWu7DBO9
q8uA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.102.36 with SMTP id fl4mr5889736wib.45.1375077610884;
Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.242.36 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201307290517.54624.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAPaL=UV9ytoDc-0U148QSbtq=QHFAY1N=nV_1h_dRW12F6YVhA@mail.gmail.com>
<201307290517.54624.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:00:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0Oe4YT+DnEiVxN_tykMQ8YPtyKTf3K7kb0B-9CHoHSy7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6MXr8TBlsbwGJn1Scrn/g4P+JQQFeGRD9xnk11sow6ak1qpUTS1yPqJviBiVn6l+saaY4
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1V3gVF-0002w4-4W
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Opcode whitelist for P2SH?
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:00:20 -0000
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:39:08 PM John Dillon wrote:
>> What are your thoughts on creating a whitelist for specific opcodes that
>> would apply to scripts serialized using P2SH, retaining the existing
>> standard whitelist for scriptPubKeys? (I would still recommend dropping
>> pay-to-pubkey and pay-to-multisig due to their potential for dumping data
>> in the UTXO set)
>
> This would be reasonable for miners, but for interoperability between wallets,
> some specific standard forms would still be necessary without a much smarter
> solver (which would then expand the code required to implement a wallet, which
> is unfortunate if not entirely necessary).
Indeed. Current designs are all based around pattern matching a
script template. Satoshi even described lightweight clients as
needing no script engine at all, only the ability to match patterns.
--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
