Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-02-01 📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2016-02-01
📝 Original message:On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> * The coinbase scriptSig gets a second number push (similar to the
> current BIP34 height push), which pushes a number O. O is a byte
> offset inside the coinbase transaction (excluding its witness data)
> that points to a 32-byte hash H. This is more flexible and more
> compact than what we have now (a suggestion by jl2012).
>

So, the script sig is "<height> <offset> ..... <H>"?

Why is this just not the offset in the extra nonce?

> A significant design consideration is that if arbitrary data can be
> > added, it is very likely that miners will make use of that ability for
> > non-Bitcoin purposes;
> I agree with the concern, but I don't really understand how this idea
> solves it.
>
>
It could be enforced that the data in the coinbase witness stack has a
fixed number of entries, which depends on the block version number.
Version 5 blocks would only have 1 entry.

This would mean a soft-fork could be used to add new entries in the stack.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>;
This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>;
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160201/f637261b/attachment.html>;