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 9E877F71 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:25:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (mo.garage.hdemail.jp [46.51.242.127]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 176594CC for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ip-10-217-1-36.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with SMTP id C823814C0D3 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:25:43 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) X-Received: from unknown (HELO mo.garage.hdemail.jp) (127.0.0.1) by 0 with SMTP; 15 Mar 2018 16:25:43 +0900 X-Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-ma-postfix) with ESMTP id BD0744C072 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:25:43 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) Received: from gw18.oz.hdemail.jp (ip-10-166-16-249.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal [10.166.16.249]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with ESMTP id BA33F14C0C5 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:25:43 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) X-Received: from mail-qk0-f198.google.com (lb05.oz.hdemail.jp [54.238.57.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw18.oz.hdemail.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B67148C0D8 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:25:43 +0900 (JST) X-Received: by mail-qk0-f198.google.com with SMTP id e6so3868009qkf.19 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:25:43 -0700 (PDT) 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=0WXRI1egSqnlApnXWU6tR7L/OQ3VX4UsAp5fTtoE9LE=; b=n7m3/Z3dsg10/gbgEB71SQ4J7UQ47++tYJCtrIkEAm6ZZ1YYy1lr+Qin/GZw4HUXrk FK39/brEIFoZE2mgbIx/U+JgFG/1H8ou9zmQVu10xfzTp1jB5jiHnIcW7cThS/O0eu0c SeBQ0wTwzQC0XdIpT4bqZ/Wr0Z3V+CFLf/90vGAAHcmbvbm4Ir+/0OKT3yqcn7dEn+b9 Zs/1fF7w992PUAnXMtM9xJqbqMWPRpfAn/5KzCrvGCMe6AQDG/e7s1J1rJqpmewpuclm 9xS5yl5MI7HWO6PbPHAafxFcyuBqKBJuC0MNlNnaH9/+LoWvPkhE0+6v3r3jfrMWjNFN p6Iw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GxTI2+rQqprkit862bRJK8wo8prRpeDFZo4j0yDw1yQh2EPmWO EqaOj4gdHuN3zcM6PAIo7qzrBmDzaEHMPplIs4E9WvRimFjXotWRWvMUe6lt5RV0NTrdORR2xQB 25ZzWFwtNUsugST/W/385iJNdBAMZ4UW3qRFNspyswd+S0/BNafwHxGheliB/9kYVd4hLQD7Z7P /MfldNBiuZvw7srjNF9LWY62ngIagf32uOBEJsSF5U9bTmqSjGd6ftswVz8oWPxKvSQSTysVK6L 2mnY33vWBEEQUsnirhzI5FDEgwXbSATf/IV5eYAtn75G0bSem1tfA9A5na9xnH879Piolpdp+Pd HGLRVFSLqBxeLbfQLq/2S2wJkgI= X-Received: by 10.55.21.27 with SMTP id f27mr11369646qkh.252.1521098741966; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt6mAbK3fGcSKZBclO6AJpXT7Flt+4peSAZRZnggYzPUHpt14PgBBiXFdw9pE78wKkA2ua7EQdvdpyhtzWeFdM= X-Received: by 10.55.21.27 with SMTP id f27mr11369627qkh.252.1521098741701; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:25:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.12.176.3 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:25:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Karl Johan Alm Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:25:21 +0000 Message-ID: To: Jim Posen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] {sign|verify}message replacement 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:25:45 -0000 On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Jim Posen wrote: > How are scripts with OP_CLTV and OP_CSV handled by verifiers? Do they always > succeed? Or should an nLockTime and nSequence also be included in the proof > in a way that can be parsed out and displayed to verifiers? Good question.. Since you don't really have the input(s), I think it's fine to always assume sufficient time/height on CLTV/CSV checks. > I assume any signatures in the scriptSig/witness data would have no sighash > type? I think it would just use the default (SIGHASH_ALL?) for simplicity. Is there a good reason to tweak it? -Kalle.