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
|
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 <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WxAVf-0000Xy-UZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:42:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.174; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WxAVe-00062B-4N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:42:19 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id l13so1883446iga.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.83.7 with SMTP id f7mr229278icl.65.1403077332189; Wed, 18
Jun 2014 00:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.60.195 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2+_tLOPELm+K54D=6SNkHg1ZeO_T1jSM=CQZYJKGODFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T2+_tLOPELm+K54D=6SNkHg1ZeO_T1jSM=CQZYJKGODFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:42:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJB8wzvBTG73TnFkHjWDMoOZiH+vgSyzmZ4r_f=nAU5WvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(laanwj[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: 1WxAVe-00062B-4N
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: relax the IsStandard rules for
P2SH transactions
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, 18 Jun 2014 07:42:20 -0000
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Gavin Andresen
<gavin@bitcoinfoundation.org> wrote:
> Assuming there is rough consensus, I'll make this a pull request (see
> https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/tree/relax_isstandard for code
> changes).
>
> ----
>
> Now that we are finally starting to see the use of multi-signature and other
> more complicated transaction forms in applications I think it is time to
> open up the "IsStandard" transaction rules on the main Bitcoin network.
Agreed!
> Discussion
> ----------
> Allowing any P2SH Script would allow an attacker to craft a single standard
> transaction output that requires on the order of 200 ECDSA signature
> checking operations to validate-- an order of magnitude more than is
> currently allowed. Therefore I am proposing that we keep the current
> 15-signature-checking-operations-per-transaction-output limit in place, but
> allow any combination of enabled Script opcodes. So, for example, you might
> have a P2SH Script that is redeemed with 2-of-2 OR 2-of-3 using:
Soungs good to me - to lift the restrictions and increase flexibility,
but also to be a careful and keep the DoS limits.
> The reference implementation's wallet will still only recognize P2SH
> transactions that use one of the standard transaction forms. To actually USE
> a new transaction form will require specialized wallets or specialized
> applications.
That's of course completely separate. As we all know, most wallet
innovation doesn't happen in the reference implementation wallet, and
it should not be used as the guide here.
Wladimir
|
