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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1XPDW4-0002UK-3w
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:34:40 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.173; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XPDW3-00041S-73
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:34:40 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h18so1128706igc.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.61.138 with SMTP id p10mr39035087igr.20.1409762073926;
Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.82.72 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSPe=dTayVXz8uFHQN+Sna7+zDcYKJL6UpuJOTq7H6fKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBiTURdRAZbyk3guF5YzAAQebo8yY_TuXHUKYDEdLjDUdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSPe=dTayVXz8uFHQN+Sna7+zDcYKJL6UpuJOTq7H6fKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:34:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBh5TXhKM_oxQpHUw-kLiQmyxCTO4nAO2jbnLUEQb=bdBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-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: 1XPDW3-00041S-73
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Small update to BIP 62
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, 03 Sep 2014 16:34:40 -0000
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not related to this change but the definition of rule 4 may not be
> sufficiently specific-- without a definition someone could reasonably
> reach a different conclusion about OP_1NEGATE being a "push
> operation", or might even decide any operation which added to the
> stack was a "push operation".
Good catch - I'll write an update soon.
> Any particular reason to enforce 2 and 4 but not also 5? Violation of
> 5 is already non-standard and like 2,4 should be safely enforceable.
Perhaps we can go further, and include 6 as well? I see zero use cases
for zero-padded numbers, as their interpretation is already identical
to the non-padded case. I wouldn't include 1 (as it would break a
large amount of wallets today), 3 (which may have a use case in more
complex scripts with conditionals) or 7 (the superfluous element
consumed by CHECKMULTISIG could potentially be used for something in
the future).
> Perhaps the rules should be reordered so that the applicable to all
> transactions ones are contiguous and first?
Ok.
>> The first six and part of the seventh can be fixed by extra consensus rules.
>
> This should clarify that the scriptPubkey can still specify rules that
> are inherently malleable-- e.g. require the input stack contain two
> pushes which OP_ADD to 11. Or a more elaborate one-- a 1 of 2 check
> multisig where the pubkey not selected for signing is selected by a
> push in the signature. The current text seems to ignore isomorphisms
> of this type. ... they're not important for what the BIP is trying to
> achieve, but the document shouldn't cause people to not think that
> sort of thing exists.
I'll try to reword.
--
Pieter
|
