From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Cc: jonasd.nick@gmail.com,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-341: Committing to all scriptPubKeys in the signature message
Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 17:15:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKmrD78naPBcfGsfr_OxyYiWM+G47sWtpNGP+u-9r4MjXA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200502142602.rj7q2m32ew6trh6u@erisian.com.au>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1238 bytes --]
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 10:26 AM Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:
>
> except that we'd arguably still be missing:
>
> is this a coinbase output? (Coin.fCoinBase)
> what was the height of the coin? (Coin.nHeight)
>
> Maybe committing to the coinbase flag would have some use, but committing
> to the height would make it hard to chain unconfirmed spends, so at
> least that part doesn't seem worth adding.
>
To add to this point, the height of the coin is something that is *not*
currently covered by any signature mode and including it would constitute a
change of an entirely different caliber; a change that I would strongly
caution against for your above reason and more.
The coinbase output flag is currently covered by the signature as the
outpoint hash has the required information (its prevout index of 0xFFFFFFFF
is only legal in a coinbase transaction). While I'm not particularly
enthusiastic about making it easier to distinguish coinbase outputs from
other outputs, and I worry a little about alternative designs for
implementing the Bitcoin protocol where this information is not so readily
available, I suppose I won't really oppose adding it. However, I don't
think anyone is seriously proposing it.
-
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1625 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-02 21:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-29 14:57 [bitcoin-dev] BIP-341: Committing to all scriptPubKeys in the signature message Andrew Kozlik
2020-05-01 6:57 ` Jeremy
2020-05-01 8:48 ` Andrew Kozlik
2020-05-01 12:23 ` Russell O'Connor
2020-05-01 12:25 ` Greg Sanders
2020-05-02 4:35 ` Jeremy
2020-05-02 14:26 ` Anthony Towns
2020-05-02 14:43 ` Russell O'Connor
2020-05-02 21:15 ` Russell O'Connor [this message]
2020-05-04 15:48 ` Andrew Kozlik
2020-05-02 12:53 ` David A. Harding
2020-05-05 10:20 ` Jonas Nick
2020-05-11 22:12 ` Pieter Wuille
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=CAMZUoKmrD78naPBcfGsfr_OxyYiWM+G47sWtpNGP+u-9r4MjXA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=roconnor@blockstream.com \
--cc=aj@erisian.com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jonasd.nick@gmail.com \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail.com \
/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