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 30D11955 for ; Mon, 7 May 2018 20:51:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 786EF18A for ; Mon, 7 May 2018 20:51:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t11so15519885wmt.0 for ; Mon, 07 May 2018 13:51:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chia-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Uc39SV8RCew0QDP4ce3NVb7yDWKHss5JvzADymVtMC8=; b=mbfdxxRyIwblMpkO5R7RYE87npFXYEVdcJQqMF8yoVwKsY+F7+YxSZS9WesniXur0R 73eV6tCLeJ3J9N6STKUg1GcIU3FVZfL4shd2/iKjYZtpMrw4cl2Z6O7A9xIPe79uf3uY 027qlN5PO1qYPz/e6/b9lDdqso9nQCCgMgzrDDA9mW+yJIedgzxCQQfDD5MSGSnGdQxS Khi0mG5oeKVa4DYRgs3xlq/Nlz7QC+a+WJVfrlHfC5/q97rXGYs3Eue+4nYJQC8qHZla ak574/oPmDx2xrtMRid1KSWhy7lcXeQNSa2j23GnQfXkw9HWzfrKJDkU6e4S2DOo5B84 ystQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Uc39SV8RCew0QDP4ce3NVb7yDWKHss5JvzADymVtMC8=; b=ZVZFTkzn2I8z+iHUkquFKHW1VC/j75F5IlpHUy8tZ2NLIhjoiWKnxEQOr9Ymb6XIwV 6/tk/Kmrb4a7TwTEMGCNPSN3buUsYbcVjuDpnAEU1uClZxfDUYw97cjDYdHxXJtCyTv3 0BgCLfgBRmilZuQg7cLQ92yC9cY7Osy9Be6QoSpTPRmhONWvEfclnzMdzBw6AEoDVqNM iRQodZbZnJ3H1/25dLm7E9csupWOG+vUs4l0GCTNeXNMQJUMQ0OumGyZsFpUZugBbvjj xQzkbR+JEmSdFh3Vsqc9Tw2q1gblkzR9vY1NcTAUjHO4pv7rWZLxCZfIZzYDdJY3/kK+ iUQg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwczIVS+27friJz8kOziof2TjZe8eQ5LXLE7zODLrPi8o9YwsQQd v2oPmhIPDSwwsogoZRjrc+HBCHK4DMaQnAyb4jONJA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoL1HwOJ5nWnL5xvKn9ZUGk7xDDyYD6Sp484uZG76RYL4vpYi53Hbc0pryEAgaHu0IyMiGjgEN4C9GdEnoQCgY= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1f13:: with SMTP id f19-v6mr1547062wmf.73.1525726272048; Mon, 07 May 2018 13:51:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.145.4 with HTTP; Mon, 7 May 2018 13:51:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [65.200.105.218] In-Reply-To: <87sh73fe4h.fsf@gmail.com> References: <871sewirni.fsf@gmail.com> <87sh73fe4h.fsf@gmail.com> From: Bram Cohen Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 13:51:11 -0700 Message-ID: To: Christian Decker , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000786ec5056ba3d4c0" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Wed, 09 May 2018 04:00:18 +0000 Cc: lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP sighash_noinput 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, 07 May 2018 20:51:14 -0000 --000000000000786ec5056ba3d4c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" A technical point about SIGHASH_NOINPUT: It seems like a more general and technically simpler to implement idea would be to have a boolean specifying whether the inputs listed must be all of them (the way it works normally) or a subset of everything. It feels like a similar boolean should be made for outputs as well. Or maybe a single boolean should apply to both. In any case, one could always use SIGHASH_SUBSET and not specify any inputs and that would have the same effect as SIGHASH_NOINPUT. On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Given the general enthusiasm, and lack of major criticism, for the > `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` proposal, I'd like to formally ask the BBEs (benevolent > BIP editors) to be assigned a BIP number. I have hacked together a > simple implementation of the hashing implementation in Bitcoin Core [1] > though I think it's unlikely to sail through review, and given the lack > of ground-work on witness V1 scripts, I can't really test it now, and > only the second commit is part of the implementation itself. > > One issue that was raised off list was that some fork coins have used > sighash 0x40 as FORKID. This does not conflict with this proposal since > the proposal only applies to segwit transactions, which the fork coins > have explicitly disabled :-) > > I'm looking forward to discussing how to we can move forward to > implementing this proposal, and how we can combine multiple proposals > into the next soft-fork. > > Cheers, > Christian > > [1] https://github.com/cdecker/bitcoin/tree/noinput > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000786ec5056ba3d4c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A technical point about SIGHASH_NOINPUT: It seems like a m= ore general and technically simpler to implement idea would be to have a bo= olean specifying whether the inputs listed must be all of them (the way it = works normally) or a subset of everything. It feels like a similar boolean = should be made for outputs as well. Or maybe a single boolean should apply = to both. In any case, one could always use SIGHASH_SUBSET and not specify a= ny inputs and that would have the same effect as SIGHASH_NOINPUT.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 a= t 12:40 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin= -dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Given the general enthusiasm, and lack of major criticism, fo= r the
`SIGHASH_NOINPUT` proposal, I'd like to formally ask the BBEs (benevole= nt
BIP editors) to be assigned a BIP number. I have hacked together a
simple implementation of the hashing implementation in Bitcoin Core [1]
though I think it's unlikely to sail through review, and given the lack=
of ground-work on witness V1 scripts, I can't really test it now, and only the second commit is part of the implementation itself.

One issue that was raised off list was that some fork coins have used
sighash 0x40 as FORKID. This does not conflict with this proposal since
the proposal only applies to segwit transactions, which the fork coins
have explicitly disabled :-)

I'm looking forward to discussing how to we can move forward to
implementing this proposal, and how we can combine multiple proposals
into the next soft-fork.

Cheers,
Christian

[1] https://github.com/cdecker/bitcoin/tree/noin= put
______________________________= _________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--000000000000786ec5056ba3d4c0--