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
|
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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Y61XQ-00085v-N4
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:29:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Y61XP-0004Vp-Nd
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:29:00 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so14077237iec.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:28:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.25.144 with SMTP id a16mr48537024icc.66.1419964134484;
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.16.30 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:28:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54A2D1F4.9050306@certimix.com>
References: <54A1A99E.1020604@certimix.com>
<CAAS2fgSvq_Tnon1C+xED06VYPizj+XTiDu0xm0MvCg_9-ejcjA@mail.gmail.com>
<54A2D1F4.9050306@certimix.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:28:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRxysRqkSxqbF8Y9u2ptfVjX0PU6W85jD-RjSn9hUqNBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Lerner <sergiolerner@certimix.com>
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-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: 1Y61XP-0004Vp-Nd
Cc: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP: Voluntary deposit bonds
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: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 18:29:00 -0000
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Sergio Lerner
<sergiolerner@certimix.com> wrote:
> Slight off-topic:
> That looks like an abuse of the VM. Even P2SH is an abuse of the VM.
> Gavin's OP_EVAL (hard-fork) should had been chosen. I'm taking about a
> simple change that goes along the lines of Satoshi's original design.
> Bitcoin was a beautiful design, and extra complexity is making it ugly.
> We need Bitcoin to be simple to understand for new programmers so they
> can keep the project going. It doesn't help the project that one needs
> to be a guru to code for Bitcoin.
Sergio there is no "abuse" there, OP_NOP3 in that case would be
redefined to OP_COINBASE_FOO_CONSISTENCY.
(I say FOO because it's not clear what rule you actually hope to apply there.)
What you suggested has no purpose by itself: it would need an
additional change which overlays functionality in order to actually do
something. Such a change would likely be "ugly"-- it's easy to be
elegant when you do nothing.
|
