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
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tier.nolan@gmail.com>) id 1Wdo2R-0000GW-Mx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:52:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.44; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qa0-f44.google.com;
Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.216.44])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wdo2R-0000B4-0d
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:52:07 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hw13so4223973qab.31
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.19.133 with SMTP id 5mr14447456qgh.46.1398462721517;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.25.86 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140425211426.GD8994@savin>
References: <CAE-z3OVsQAya3RDzMTvKNK4hLGQVjFOp6Bseo=xK4ApOdPCh8g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE28kUT4rZJHzww5gsdkCyzyKV6q2bV4h4rL_hzAcvhtCpKW4w@mail.gmail.com>
<20140425201403.GA8994@savin>
<CAAS2fgQc_UgwYgc0kVso-cL6xqP-2MGg2JoWDHYyAUXhQkyaoA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140425211426.GD8994@savin>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:52:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OUM6_+qtxzcLg1FkUe8jxCLnJDya=eH9O5+LY_KRrhZpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971
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
(tier.nolan[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: 1Wdo2R-0000B4-0d
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP - Hash Locked Transaction
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:52:07 -0000
--001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Along those lines, rather than doing up yet another format specific type
> as Tier Nolan is doing with his BIP, why not write a BIP looking at how
> the IsStandard() rules could be removed?
Removal of isStandard() would be even better/more flexible.
A whitelist of low risk opcodes seems like a reasonable compromise.
My thoughts behind these two BIPs are that they are a smaller change that
adds functionality required for a particular use-case (and some others).
Changing the entire philosophy behind isStandard() is a much bigger change
than just adding one new type.
--001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Along those lines, rather than doing up yet another format specific type<br=
>
as Tier Nolan is doing with his BIP, why not write a BIP looking at how<br>
the IsStandard() rules could be removed?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Re=
moval of isStandard() would be even better/more flexible.<br><br>A whitelis=
t of low risk opcodes seems like a reasonable compromise.<br><br>My thought=
s behind these two BIPs are that they are a
smaller change that adds functionality required for a particular=20
use-case (and some others).<br><br></div><div>Changing the entire philosoph=
y behind isStandard() is a much bigger change than just adding one new type=
.<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a11355746bf6cc004f7e4f971--
|
