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 2DF65E39 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:08:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD550826 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:08:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [25.7.14.208] (unknown [172.56.3.156]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 578681201F6; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Matt Corallo X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:08:39 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <88C160CE-F2CE-4D6E-BA1F-40E219A1659E@mattcorallo.com> References: <6bb308f5-f478-d5ec-064f-e4972709f29c@mattcorallo.com> To: Russell O'Connor X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:48:10 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great Consensus Cleanup 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: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 21:08:42 -0000 Note that even your carve-outs for OP_NOP is not sufficient here - if you we= re using nSequence to tag different pre-signed transactions into categories (= roughly as you suggest people may want to do with extra sighash bits) then t= heir transactions could very easily have become un-realistically-spendable. T= he whole point of soft forks is that we invalidate otherwise-unused bits of t= he protocol. This does not seem inconsistent with the proposal here. > On Mar 9, 2019, at 13:29, Russell O'Connor wrote= : > Bitcoin has *never* made a soft-fork, since the time of Satoishi, that inv= alidated transactions that send secured inputs to secured outputs (excluding= uses of OP_NOP1-OP_NOP10).