From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DF65E39
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	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 <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKnK2YhucaJ-1HxH3MXeBtQZebV+h_rcS5Oq=yCMDC5u7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:08:39 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <88C160CE-F2CE-4D6E-BA1F-40E219A1659E@mattcorallo.com>
References: <bf96c2fb-2e2e-a47f-e59f-87e56d83eca3@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAMZUoK=1kgZLR1YZ+cJgzwmEOwrABYFs=2Ri=xGX=BCr+w=VQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6bb308f5-f478-d5ec-064f-e4972709f29c@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAMZUoKk3CgatSexAHRuxn3ibCYwgHpTkc0gF0yDi6hLAVcCiNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<db3405ef-7e06-9538-0700-df37abaa602d@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAMZUoKnK2YhucaJ-1HxH3MXeBtQZebV+h_rcS5Oq=yCMDC5u7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.io>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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 <roconnor@blockstream.io> 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).