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 555FE723 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:28:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64D9DF5 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:28:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161]) by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18CBD6175D for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:28:53 +0100 (CET) From: Tom Zander To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:28:51 +0100 Message-ID: <3922242.R3uioAF9MN@strawberry> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:29:38 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flexible Transactions. 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: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:28:57 -0000 On Monday, 21 November 2016 10:54:19 CET Russell O'Connor wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev > linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The OP_CHECKSIG is the most well known and, as its name implies, it > > validates a signature. > > In the new version of 'script' (version 2) the data that is signed is > > changed to be equivalent to the transaction-id. This is a massive > > simplification and also the only change between version 1 and version 2 > > of script. > > I'm a fan of simplicity too; Unfortunately, your proposal above to change > the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG is too naive. Thanks for your email, Russell. Unfortunately you waited 6 weeks with writing this and the problem you are seeing has been fixed quite some time ago. Thanks again for reviewing, though! -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel