From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YEgwy-0003NB-7K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:19:12 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YEgww-0000tO-FW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:19:12 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id tr6so7945100ieb.4 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:19:04 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=6I8Lnnf5IVkuC31QTmUopnAyh5YSdQbzYFw6+IaI3iQ=; b=jTJLX4R7OPTtkgF3kexMjIhybHkJIrVbLQen8Y8He9gI6JPgxgqhnlGp5f9Mp7G1xt Or4GpLYHaMQ0YQ9/xT0f7gPqvN8L719dNOvqe6w9mAhgEOzeBPr8o3cid0+8t4/0Z60x +GDHC+bWITjZve9q3lHA3XA8J+jsA8uDzzfiMW/SCTokH0YMw9Slsha9hj2ymNwIaAAL 31e19UduuoJ5LOPvp7ByF0XUr1at+67oKTbj4xYXf3JRDWq7BoXjd+t5soUOHQOWqh6p rEmnfGYiL4K8yGu93r+yYPjxRz2qiTFyGHlECDQKTjvp9p1b9privFYpoDdFP6PkDQs4 8gGw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFCFUC60XSW+YRCf75CFm9jlpmErn+JmXENR7Q+5esUPQXJsRBM4mSHP3rZGduvfrk/IPM X-Received: by 10.107.150.6 with SMTP id y6mr4508140iod.22.1422029944775; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:19:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: marek@palatinus.cz Received: by 10.64.31.138 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:18:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54C267A1.8090208@gmail.com> From: slush Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:18:34 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WWYJlbqudk-Yt0t94x-o6KHFqNw Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568 X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (slush[at]centrum.cz) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.7 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YEgww-0000tO-FW Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] SIGHASH_WITHINPUTVALUE X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:19:12 -0000 --001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I think this is unreasonable. There is a straight-forward soft-fork > approach which is safe (e.g. no risk of invalidating existing > transactions). Yes, it means that you need to use newly created > addresses to get coins that use the new signature type... Can you send me any reference about this? Of course if that solves the problem, hard fork would not be necessary anymore. I'm just not aware of any. Can you help me understand whats taking 40 minutes here? Thats a > surprisingly high number, and so I'm wondering if I'm not missing > something there. > > To sign transaction with hundreds of inputs on device with limited memory capabilities, I need to stream all previous transactions into device, for every signed input. That means roughly 200^2 transaction verifications for 200 inputs to sign. Very slow, but does not limit the device for any particular size of signed transaction. Marek --001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell <= gmaxwell@gmail.com<= /a>> wrote:
I think this is unr= easonable. There is a straight-forward soft-fork
approach which is safe (e.g. no risk of invalidating existing
transactions). Yes, it means that you need to use newly created
addresses to get coins that use the new signature type...
=
Can you send me any reference about this? Of course if that = solves the problem, hard fork would not be necessary anymore. I'm just = not aware of any.

Can yo= u help me understand whats taking 40 minutes here? Thats a
surprisingly high number, and so I'm wondering if I'm not missing something there.

<= br>
To sign transaction with hundreds of inputs on device with li= mited memory capabilities, I need to stream all previous transactions into = device, for every signed input.

That means roughly= 200^2 transaction verifications for 200 inputs to sign. Very slow, but doe= s not limit the device for any particular size of signed transaction.
=

Marek
--001a1140bf9ab80ba7050d542568--