Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2019-06-05 📝 Original message:On Fri, May 31, 2019 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2019-06-05
📝 Original message:On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
"OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash
value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL"
FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
Cheers,
aj
📝 Original message:On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
"OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash
value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL"
FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
Cheers,
aj