From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY or "Wildcard Inputs" or "Coalescing Transactions"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:32:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0A8EczcsE8f3D4WGk-0xsPadupBVgH5_kTs=GEhOq_9g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAcC9yuM+dG+mJn_0vPqZuig5cHqeF-xgszw-zzD3D9UKRsyrQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1863 bytes --]
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The technical reason for this is that you have to explicitly list each
> UTXO individually when making bitcoin transactions. There is no way to
> say "all the utxos". This post describes a way to achieve this. I'm
> not yet a bitcoin master, so there are parts of this proposal that I
> have not yet figured out entirely, but I'm sure other people who know
> more could help out.
>
So every input has:
32-byte hash (transaction being spent)
4-byte output (output being spent)
4-byte sequence number
... plus the scriptSig. Which is as small as about 73 bytes if you're
spending a raw OP_CHECKSIG (which you can't do as a bitcoin address, but
could via the BIP70 payment protocol), and which is at least two serialized
bytes.
Best case for any scheme to coalesce scriptSigs would to somehow make
all-but-the-first scriptSig zero-length, so the inputs would be 42 bytes
instead of 40+73 bytes -- the coalesce transaction would be about one-third
the size, so instead of paying (say) $1 in transaction fees you'd pay 37
cents.
That's in the gray are of the "worth doing" threshold-- if it was a 10x
improvement (pay 10 cents instead of $1) it'd be in my personal "definitely
worth the trouble of doing" category.
RE: the scheme: an OP_RINGSIGVERIFY is probably the right way to do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature
The funding transactions would be: <public key> OP_RINGSIGVERIFY
... which might could be redeemed with <ring signature> for one input and
then... uhh... maybe just <index_to_input_with_signature> for the other
inputs that are part of the same ring signature group (OP_0 if the first
input has the signature that is good for all the other public keys, which
would be the common case).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2726 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-24 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-24 17:34 [bitcoin-dev] OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY or "Wildcard Inputs" or "Coalescing Transactions" Chris Priest
2015-11-24 20:32 ` Gavin Andresen [this message]
2015-11-24 21:01 ` Chris Priest
2015-11-24 21:51 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-11-24 23:28 ` Dave Scotese
2015-11-24 23:48 ` Chris Priest
2015-11-25 0:38 ` Jannes Faber
2015-11-25 1:26 ` Chris Priest
2015-11-25 14:16 ` Erik
2015-11-25 15:41 ` Trevin Hofmann
2015-11-25 17:03 ` Dave Scotese
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CABsx9T0A8EczcsE8f3D4WGk-0xsPadupBVgH5_kTs=GEhOq_9g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gavinandresen@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=cp368202@ohiou.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox