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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E29E6FF7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com
[209.85.213.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AF62D3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:33:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id x135so1243146vkd.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:33:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to; bh=GhyXd5p6rEf9sR+/Vkr9I+A2jv350x1HoEZIoZprGZU=;
b=r0N8tOV5uebqDAkkxBKu38ku6uYhetZOufPQQx+m86qMQcfYHnkhIw77s9sDXFxJAf
BRL35OU4u1tvszkwlXdYTQhwJwHi7K4sD0/dSdZM5XTTqZKwnz1SjKWIgNPQ8LM/5mBj
KDPv5tj7rKIZAgsYBV3Bhuo1M0pRNF706GAboWjrq6ozUIOU7OKX3W3qUFrljibAnGsJ
4VLnnRQsBcGmoR3IPMOEP4h0Y+t9qXN8NvuwnZG+SLia4L3dQnbNGLhncYBCOHKACdfe
PjO1Cmv5TJb+m6gUEwkiMhyZOlcrW4UNcM78Hi/amIl/KumctGGCleTgVL5C3bcNDvax
40ww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=GhyXd5p6rEf9sR+/Vkr9I+A2jv350x1HoEZIoZprGZU=;
b=NV1yW0rVI2QEQzpwtQAOgXerGiTWJN/yz04gmqiGtx0j2+Q0xp496Zp2Ik/oB7jDlu
1BBYbYa5zbD9RdsilhqNsWsoZlah/7ke+ISHu4uHleD+U8R25kSmogCGV1Nh45IzWIaw
qB4z0SHkN2a2l39xEcti8uWb3n3q+lacAQozBDDwZocTF6pOXKQ415nI9uL++z6Rlj8Y
+O7qM18/TBJZw2DNknsc5E+X+eUCLM0+gVHhRQJ6aEd1nyzyBk70Q3602YbS9TYrsqzN
+2Y8geNPeG8NaLe9NyJ9r/gmZSTXvwMqanfMIT6vXcT0PXtdbSX03pEA7l4wXAdRYedq
D7Rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPC384mtey1iksC5MznMI0plVhyVIhx8GN3oZVFTvwTPhW6qw3eJ
uzSloZT+vjW2Bg7G7E+rE3KbPzeeseWi9f+EzgY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226uyWjVMdkuZec7lzlB4JGLuMcs12dr5TIfL/c1AZIDG3ca2L2qn7Zk3W0lM85CzI/PvldnAcFfv6pSTWmkxk4=
X-Received: by 10.31.168.20 with SMTP id r20mr6075474vke.149.1518834813332;
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:33:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.136.69 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:33:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0213B102-7595-4177-A76C-FE4E8D7F0EDF@xbt.hk>
References: <0213B102-7595-4177-A76C-FE4E8D7F0EDF@xbt.hk>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:33:32 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GfwKf8azv_ltcNoX2eoTQfE1QP8
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT_AjhaZ8AtG8H-8=0tiXTULK9ciLy-a-vW6u==MyBbcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Alternative way to count sigops
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: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 02:33:35 -0000
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Since we have a block weight limit of 4,000,000 and sigop limit of 80,000,
> each sigop could not use more than 50 weight unit on average. For new script
> proposals we could count the actual number of sigop at execution (i.e. skip
> unexecuted sigop, skip 0-size signature, count the actual checksig
> operations in multi-sig), and make sure the number of executed sigop * 50 is
> not greater than the size of the input.
We have a related policy rule in Bitcoin Core for some time now, the
weight of the transaction for the purpose of mining is
max(weight,lambda*sigops), though we set lambda a bit lower than makes
sense due to how checkmultisig. This policy rule replaced an earlier
one which was almost equivalent to your proposal: it rejected
transactions with too many sigops per the byte count, but we found it
block actual more or less sensible transactions.
Going forward I don't think this is a great framework. It works if
the only expensive operations all involve large input data, but I
think many proposals people have made for new operations would have
computational cost which requires relatively small amounts of
additional input-- aggregation is just one fairly minor example.
|
