From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RsGvN-0002SE-Jh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:51:17 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RsGvI-0003Or-7s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:51:17 +0000 Received: by werc1 with SMTP id c1so277938wer.34 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.138.8 with SMTP id z8mr2459532wei.20.1328028666148; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hc10sm38505954wib.8.2012.01.31.08.51.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:51:04 -0800 (PST) From: Andy Parkins To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:50:58 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1573734.FR5WsQH80B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com> 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 (andyparkins[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: 1RsGvI-0003Or-7s Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP16/17 replacement X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:51:17 -0000 --nextPart1573734.FR5WsQH80B Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Gulp. Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. However, it seems= =20 to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the=20 technical. Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that anothe= r=20 solution might be better? The answer doesn't have to be A or B, if the=20 answer C turns out to be acceptable. That being said; I am not confident enough to start making BIPs so I offer= =20 this idea up for my traditional mailing-list roasting but with the hope tha= t=20 I blindly stumble toward something more acceptable to everyone. =2D--- If the change is going to be a big one anyway and will require a client=20 upgrade why not... - Increase the version number in transactions to make a new transaction structure - Dump the "scriptPubKey" field completely. Everything will be pay-to- script-hash in version2 transactions - Replace it with "hashOfClaimingScript" - Add an "unsignedParameters" array. hashOfClaimingScript is _not_ script. It's just the hash of the script tha= t=20 is allowed to claim the output. Then before scriptSig is allowed to run, i= t=20 is hashed and compared against the hashOfClaimingScript. unsignedParameters replaces the need for all the crazy messing around that= =20 OP_CHECKSIG currently does because it is specifically a block of the=20 transaction that it not signed (although I would include the array size byt= es=20 in the signature calculation), therefore no script filtering is necessary. The claiming script, scriptSig, can then be checked against whatever list o= f=20 templates you like. For pay-to-address it will probably look like: OP_PUSHPARAMETER {0} OP_PUSH { } OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY Handling the more complicated transactions (they're the point of all this=20 after all) is pretty obvious; the unsignedParameters block can hold as many= =20 signatures as you like. It also removes the need for OP_CHECKMULTISIG, sin= ce=20 the script can specify the signature conditions. e.g. a 2-of-3 script: OP_PUSHPARMETER {0} OP_PUSH { } OP_CHECKSIG OP_PUSHPARMETER {1} OP_PUSH { } OP_CHECKSIG OP_PUSHPARMETER {1} OP_PUSH { } OP_CHECKSIG OP_ADD OP_ADD OP_PUSH {1} OP_GREATERTHAN (I'm sure someone cleverer than I can improve on the above) =2D---- Let the flaming commence... Andy =2D-=20 Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com --nextPart1573734.FR5WsQH80B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk8oG/MACgkQwQJ9gE9xL23vwACfeYvy5yud7AZqlnBkCv8aoa85 Zh0AoJJbZQoqyiYSzA51SDxYy0+GO0D8 =shkA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1573734.FR5WsQH80B--