Re: [Bitcoin-development] Small update to BIP 62

[Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not related to this change but the definition of rule 4 may not be
>> sufficiently specific-- without a definition someone could reasonably
>> reach a different conclusion about OP_1NEGATE being a "push
>> operation", or might even decide any operation which added to the
>> stack was a "push operation".
>
> Good catch - I'll write an update soon.

>> Perhaps the rules should be reordered so that the applicable to all
>> transactions ones are contiguous and first?
> Ok.

>>> The first six and part of the seventh can be fixed by extra consensus rules.
>>
>> This should clarify that the scriptPubkey can still specify rules that
>> are inherently malleable [...]
> I'll try to reword.

I've sent out a new pull request
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/102/files) that:
* Changes the order of the rules.
* Adds more reference documentation about minimal pushes and number encodings.
* Clarified that extra consensus rules cannot prevent someone from
creating outputs whose spending transactions will be malleable.

I haven't changed which rules are mandatory in v3, so this is a pure
clarification & reorganization of the text.

Any comments?

-- 
Pieter