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 1RsaxC-0002OP-JU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:14:30 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rsax7-0001Ns-79 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:14:30 +0000 Received: by wibhq7 with SMTP id hq7so1364870wib.34 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.81.66 with SMTP id y2mr41750032wix.20.1328105658941; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:14:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ho4sm45029787wib.3.2012.02.01.06.14.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:14:14 -0800 (PST) From: Andy Parkins To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:14:08 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; ) References: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201201311651.02726.andyparkins@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2479945.80yN0cNbTc"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201202011414.12221.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 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rsax7-0001Ns-79 Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:14:30 -0000 --nextPart2479945.80yN0cNbTc Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Andy Parkins wrote: > - 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. Having thought about it; I've realised that the above is simply BIP16 witho= ut=20 the backward compatibility work in it. If BIP16 renamed the scriptPubKey=20 field to "hashOfClaimingScript" and no longer ran it as a script, it woudl = be=20 close to identical. We'd simply define the field as 0xa9 0x14 0x87 Detection of this format of scriptPubKey activates "version2" processing of= =20 the transaction. And similarly, a new definition of scriptSig to be two=20 fields: unsignedInitialStackBlock scriptClaim I'm sure nobody cares about my opinion; but that's actually been the moment= =20 of epiphany for me (and I raise it here, in case it is for someone else). = =20 Having previously been against BIP16, I'm now happy with BIP16 -- it's a=20 progression towards the ideal... having a literal claimScriptHash field=20 instead of scriptPubKey; and never running scriptPubKey. Potentially OP_CHECKSIG could be simplified as well because the rules could= =20 be "anything that's not the serialized script" in scriptSig is not signed. I can imagine one day, when the network is all BIP16 compliant, that=20 scriptPubKey will no longer be allowed to run as script at all. Andy =2D-=20 Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com --nextPart2479945.80yN0cNbTc 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) iEYEABECAAYFAk8pSLAACgkQwQJ9gE9xL21mEACglO3l1+UAprJOwgUEVn8cWi9f qlAAn10MPG6H297xWJJ2b9ToQHN2lTiC =Yjzz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2479945.80yN0cNbTc--