Re: [Bitcoin-development] SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 23 January 2015 08:35:23 GMT-08:00, slush <slush@centrum.cz> wrote:
>Oh, now I got the 'soft-fork' alternative. If that means that *senders*
>to
>Trezor need to be nice guys and use some special outputs, then it's,
>obviously, no-go solution.

That's what P2SH is for; the senders will just be sending to a P2SH address.

>I understand political aspect around hard-fork. Anyway, are there any
>other
>pending projects waiting for hard-fork?

Hard-forks aren't hard for directly political issues, they're politically hard because they're risky by requiring everyone yo upgrade at once. In the case of signature validation, that touches a *lot* of third party code that people rely on to avoid being defrauded.

FWIW I've actually got a half-finished writeup for how to use OP_CODESEPARATOR and a CHECKSIG2 soft-fork to have signatures sign fees and so forth.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1

iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJUwonGMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhbwkCADP7AcJ6a6V/y7MHt2x
ZiCXYsfHq5j03kbSWXGi1Q/9RqWGVha1fhWPp62yhDxbWOfh5QKauCbrt2g1AqT3
xbnh+2XE1rApBQIiJ6u0wZmpCi+4EhH2M9R8UYu9oIMzBe4K2jhzUbzcOR9Qplyq
9j6yevNrvtNHZb2OTiaKelxnuZUEiAsONHPOvR8Fkflwbd/w279OeilRjHYt3A/J
U22KOwjNrpa7/QE/HeC0QINqr3S132Yg4iYFwPviBwGq/WXQuLHIzGtgKOzrIC1T
h6kpWO9CjSxVbjMrf68IrSHRv92K8y1LiHFRZvzp3ulzcGBo2btazmrp/fUDLCr0
6uFg
=uDeM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----