From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FBA2C04 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:31:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sender-of-o52.zoho.com (sender-of-o52.zoho.com [135.84.80.217]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAAFA1F6 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1493235102024231.36833636944152; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: Johnson Lau In-Reply-To: <201704202028.53113.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 03:31:38 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <06E90C6D-8B4C-40A7-8807-8811A27AE401@xbt.hk> References: <201704202028.53113.luke@dashjr.org> To: Luke Dashjr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit v2 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:31:44 -0000 I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or = wallet upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the = commitment structure as suggested by another post. For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as = that should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you = should put it in witness instead. Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so miners = can=E2=80=99t put garbage to legacy txs. But I think relaxing the = witness program size to 73 bytes is enough for any purpose. > On 21 Apr 2017, at 04:28, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > Since BIP 141's version bit assignment will timeout soon, and needing = renewal,=20 > I was thinking it might make sense to make some minor tweaks to the = spec for=20 > the next deployment. These aren't critical, so it's perfectly fine if = BIP 141=20 > activates as-is (potentially with BIP 148), but IMO would be an = improvement if=20 > a new deployment (non-BIP148 UASF and/or new versionbit) is needed. >=20 > 1. Change the dummy marker to 0xFF instead of 0. Using 0 creates = ambiguity=20 > with incomplete zero-input transactions, which has been a source of = confusion=20 > for raw transaction APIs. 0xFF would normally indicate a >32-bit input = count,=20 > which is impossible right now (it'd require a >=3D158 GB transaction) = and=20 > unlikely to ever be useful. >=20 > 2. Relax the consensus rules on when witness data is allowed for an = input.=20 > Currently, it is only allowed when the scriptSig is null, and the = scriptPubKey=20 > being spent matches a very specific pattern. It is ignored by = "upgrade-safe"=20 > policy when the scriptPubKey doesn't match an even-more-specific = pattern.=20 > Instead, I suggest we allow it (in the consensus layer only) in = combination=20 > with scriptSig and with any scriptPubKey, and consider these cases to = be=20 > "upgrade-safe" policy ignoring. >=20 > The purpose of the second change is to be more flexible to any future=20= > softforks. I consider it minor because we don't know of any = possibilities=20 > where it would actually be useful. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev