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
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FBA2C04
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:31:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sender-of-o52.zoho.com (sender-of-o52.zoho.com [135.84.80.217])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAAFA1F6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:31:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by
mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1493235102024231.36833636944152;
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <201704202028.53113.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 03:31:38 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <06E90C6D-8B4C-40A7-8807-8811A27AE401@xbt.hk>
References: <201704202028.53113.luke@dashjr.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-ZohoMailClient: External
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit v2
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 19:31:44 -0000
I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or =
wallet upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the =
commitment structure as suggested by another post.
For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as =
that should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you =
should put it in witness instead.
Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so miners =
can=E2=80=99t put garbage to legacy txs. But I think relaxing the =
witness program size to 73 bytes is enough for any purpose.
> On 21 Apr 2017, at 04:28, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> Since BIP 141's version bit assignment will timeout soon, and needing =
renewal,=20
> I was thinking it might make sense to make some minor tweaks to the =
spec for=20
> the next deployment. These aren't critical, so it's perfectly fine if =
BIP 141=20
> activates as-is (potentially with BIP 148), but IMO would be an =
improvement if=20
> a new deployment (non-BIP148 UASF and/or new versionbit) is needed.
>=20
> 1. Change the dummy marker to 0xFF instead of 0. Using 0 creates =
ambiguity=20
> with incomplete zero-input transactions, which has been a source of =
confusion=20
> for raw transaction APIs. 0xFF would normally indicate a >32-bit input =
count,=20
> which is impossible right now (it'd require a >=3D158 GB transaction) =
and=20
> unlikely to ever be useful.
>=20
> 2. Relax the consensus rules on when witness data is allowed for an =
input.=20
> Currently, it is only allowed when the scriptSig is null, and the =
scriptPubKey=20
> being spent matches a very specific pattern. It is ignored by =
"upgrade-safe"=20
> policy when the scriptPubKey doesn't match an even-more-specific =
pattern.=20
> Instead, I suggest we allow it (in the consensus layer only) in =
combination=20
> with scriptSig and with any scriptPubKey, and consider these cases to =
be=20
> "upgrade-safe" policy ignoring.
>=20
> The purpose of the second change is to be more flexible to any future=20=
> softforks. I consider it minor because we don't know of any =
possibilities=20
> where it would actually be useful.
>=20
> Thoughts?
>=20
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
