Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.43;
	envelope-from=kristovatlas.lists@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f43.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <44BE16F9-AB24-4A8E-BC7F-03A6C590FCE7@gmail.com>
References: <CAGH37SK0k1YUvadetyHcBGjzW+OHNFRmRwqsUDeHBGejUacigQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<44BE16F9-AB24-4A8E-BC7F-03A6C590FCE7@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 02:24:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGH37SL3TA7BXd3Y+4F1Fd5N3ZW+LRLvkfppPsPn61ZVbZJOnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kristov Atlas <kristovatlas.lists@gmail.com>
To: Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3ecfe19d3340517d377ae
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Lexicographical Indexing of Transaction
 Inputs and Outputs
Precedence: list

--001a11c3ecfe19d3340517d377ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hey Stephen,

Thanks for your feedback

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Stephen <stephencalebmorse@gmail.com>
wrote:

>  - I think your explanation of sorting could be significantly shortened
> and clarified by simply saying that the TXIDs of inputs should be compared
> as uint256 integers.
>

I considered defining the comparison of txids in terms of integers;
however, I am concerned that this definition may be ambiguous when applied
to a variety of languages and platforms without a similar amount of
explanation as currently exists. For example, if a web wallet uses an API
to receive transaction information, this is traditionally expressed in
terms tx id strings rather than 256-bit integers. My intent is that wallets
can implement the algorithm however they wish, but should ensure that their
output is compliant with the BIP definition. IMHO the algorithm stated in
the BIP should target test cases rather than implementation, and should
leave as little room for ambiguity as possible.

--001a11c3ecfe19d3340517d377ae
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hey Stephen,<br><br></div>Thanks for your feedback<di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 =
at 11:20 PM, Stephen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:stephencalebmo=
rse@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">stephencalebmorse@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>=C2=A0- I =
think your explanation of sorting could be significantly shortened and clar=
ified by simply saying that the TXIDs of inputs should be compared as uint2=
56 integers.=C2=A0</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I considered=
 defining the comparison of txids in terms of integers; however, I am conce=
rned that this definition may be ambiguous when applied to a variety of lan=
guages and platforms without a similar amount of explanation as currently e=
xists. For example, if a web wallet uses an API to receive transaction info=
rmation, this is traditionally expressed in terms tx id strings rather than=
 256-bit integers. My intent is that wallets can implement the algorithm ho=
wever they wish, but should ensure that their output is compliant with the =
BIP definition. IMHO the algorithm stated in the BIP should target test cas=
es rather than implementation, and should leave as little room for ambiguit=
y as possible. <br></div></div></div></div>

--001a11c3ecfe19d3340517d377ae--