1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1WgwQd-0004QZ-6P
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 04 May 2014 13:26:03 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WgwQc-0006av-BG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 04 May 2014 13:26:03 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hi2so202390wib.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 04 May 2014 06:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=TWGEDocY1S6Ui297Xaj8rwpiDpw2ZcoH8iTR9yRhK58=;
b=F2gSF3PAJdR5tJg5FghIMB2PjvZfcrLyP+ZgJhPr8v4WXoSqknuQjzVRJf7g3nb7hv
Oo/ObLEwBPveR1SQw9S2zB/2sIagVVHaFxeWFQnm05s0UxVQLnRrpLiqsLhNdEtg/6uk
xaERGmb9zaSVggLPtR9XnLH2ZWwrLe6Xm+VfuUkVKKHwyCG3FZrF8wobnzLb+WJQMHtd
BEZbv4llrsJk0og6i9Rg8+mjG9muAbzOqVTG17w+NH6DaCYUk53//eI88W0ibGRoCmRe
EPMf9OWV/aVLjlFLWbPlu1kOXK1fANXSpuPOuOjeQ3Iwb7nyyjJaVjC+awBx8gE6rBZ0
0Dpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQLW5f84snJuhgK59ggsGS5BZd1Ls9FJGIKB5g2SAYv5GrRG9bjOlzqAkqSM41iZ9o16fr
X-Received: by 10.194.171.198 with SMTP id aw6mr23163146wjc.23.1399209955874;
Sun, 04 May 2014 06:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.243.138 with HTTP; Sun, 4 May 2014 06:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53654057.1080105@monetize.io>
References: <CABbpET-uDQRFQ_XAFeWkgc=A1jEW62Q+8BTZZuW5UbZXX0y+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
<218332ea-948d-4af0-b4c5-ced83f25d734@email.android.com>
<53653B90.4070401@monetize.io>
<CAAS2fgS61rxB3x4ii68XTHC-V_jpfng-Px6Tv9GV20-putiLUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<53654057.1080105@monetize.io>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 09:25:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0NDWjHFrYE4mQ1iB_70_=9Mg04-PiberkkaQmSdFDohEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WgwQc-0006av-BG
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bug with handing of OP_RETURN?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:26:03 -0000
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io> wrote:
> Is it more complex? The current implementation using template matching
> seems more complex than `if script.vch[0] == OP_RETURN &&
> script.vch.size() < 42`
Not much more complex.
The template matches a two-chunk script with OP_RETURN + one pushdata
(or just OP_RETURN with no push). The pushdata is further limited to
MAX_OP_RETURN_RELAY bytes.
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
|
