From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:28:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3922242.R3uioAF9MN@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKm3RXs_HAzGT3gz60kiB6FQnjpGRhfu6biwZ5a_TcPeaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMZUoKm3RXs_HAzGT3gz60kiB6FQnjpGRhfu6biwZ5a_TcPeaA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flexible Transactions.
Precedence: list

On Monday, 21 November 2016 10:54:19 CET Russell O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.
> 
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The OP_CHECKSIG is the most well known and, as its name implies, it
> > validates a signature.
> > In the new version of 'script' (version 2) the data that is signed is
> > changed to be equivalent to the transaction-id. This is a massive
> > simplification and also the only change between version 1 and version 2
> > of script.
> 
> I'm a fan of simplicity too; Unfortunately, your proposal above to change
> the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG is too naive.

Thanks for your email, Russell.

Unfortunately you waited 6 weeks with writing this and the problem you are 
seeing has been fixed quite some time ago.

Thanks again for reviewing, though!
-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel