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 3CFB69DA for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 18:29:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io1-f53.google.com (mail-io1-f53.google.com [209.85.166.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF9707FC for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 18:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f53.google.com with SMTP id x9so612798iog.12 for ; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 10:29:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream.io; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UFEhFNSwCTO/4NAIMNblr94xfDASb3mcCyGUrlUdQu0=; b=AxTVet9dELT0O78NpajSpQCOINYF0Tl3tsUPGyt4uMjnklXgBnl0e8MUPcFJ5i79nQ 3kMgyzx6/4bpo3lKxSsnk7rHslW6LRuNTIz5QoIWUmDIvxsMXN+dPX3E3wYvS2MQG7r4 TEbasf96FK8rWGjeUkfCwzng5Hbo4htLfb54c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UFEhFNSwCTO/4NAIMNblr94xfDASb3mcCyGUrlUdQu0=; b=a/a91pJ2d3w2FOPk+5AqFo5II0V1xzEaE0XhPin2Qmv3skpgHQfbTlfYz1hnRM67z7 hskPiHoA2sYS1iow7hpJ45WB5VpAz956bKKV7q33A5c8P6EpcIZZsvlKf/o1svHnRtQE 8ywKWbX2n9G364OHs8bl/b/gYU4fKIldMAqUaO/6o19hWhkLL0Lo3MeAHQsVBnm3+p1K BcnWUcMqBuwL87Qmo4DybwV//4GZYBJJ9nksSywdV4XA5ReLN6JzU6+zVzTWb6JAKTeA r1LRP+GoI/GYEMDJ6VWM87qTijsXjIM6pSIGfFI2L6RedOWwFP5syNjG+10lMcruveQC 0feg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUtA7R42eHpco6WMdA35npOiG9x16eUDgWtrqSIFV5lyk20bY1v rxbv4vTPLqrTvJiFAsBI1ILA1KI+0vPVVGfqKYJlU3d/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxqLc9TD6Lii3PSFyNuNicAUDB7lJeWYCudK4vx7HYWiNzSV8QUGKpXAJXk2NdlXbcUJDEPf2upvOZqkqd+KUU= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7b08:: with SMTP id l8mr460170iop.33.1552156166434; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 10:29:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6bb308f5-f478-d5ec-064f-e4972709f29c@mattcorallo.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:29:15 -0500 Message-ID: To: Sjors Provoost Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000efd01c0583ad845f" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 22:19:20 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 18:29:28 -0000 --000000000000efd01c0583ad845f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Sjors, On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:12 PM Sjors Provoost wrote: > Transaction weight currently doesn't consider OP codes, it only considers > if bytes are part of the witness. Changing that to something more akin to > Ethereums gas pricing sounds too complicated to even consider. > I did say per executed OP_CODESEPARATOR, but upon reflection, I agree that we'd like to know the weight without execution. I think counting the number of occurrences of OP_CODESEPARATOR (perhaps at the same time we count OP_CHECKSIG operations?) is a reasonable compromise, and increasing the weight according to my proposed formula based on that count (ideally we'd take OP_IF branches into account). > I would also like to believe that whoever went through the trouble of > using OP_CODESEPARATOR reads this list. > I wish this were the case too, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that (even maaku isn't subscribed ), and I don't even think it is fair to assume such a someone necessarily even speaks English. --000000000000efd01c0583ad845f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Sjors,

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:12 PM Sjors Pro= voost <sjors@spr= ovoost.nl> wrote:
Transaction weight currently doesn't consider OP codes, it only conside= rs if bytes are part of the witness. Changing that to something more akin t= o Ethereums gas pricing sounds too complicated to even consider.

I did say per executed OP_CODESEPARATOR, but upon= reflection, I agree that we'd like to know the weight without executio= n.=C2=A0 I think counting the number of occurrences of OP_CODESEPARATOR (pe= rhaps at the same time we count OP_CHECKSIG operations?) is a reasonable co= mpromise, and increasing the weight according to my proposed formula based = on that count (ideally we'd take OP_IF branches into account).
=C2=A0
I would also like to believe that whoever went through the trouble of using= OP_CODESEPARATOR reads this list.

I wi= sh this were the case too, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume= that (even maaku isn't subscribed), and I = don't even think it is fair to assume such a someone necessarily even s= peaks English.
--000000000000efd01c0583ad845f--