Ruben de Vries [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-02-13 📝 Original message:The idea is more like ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-02-13
📝 Original message:The idea is more like BIP44/45 to have a 'standard' that software can
comply by and express they do
so that it makes a step towards compatibility between (wallet) software.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:13:33PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > Where is the Specification section?? Does this support arbitrary
> scripts, or
> > only the simplest CHECKMULTISIG case?
>
> It might be enough to rewrite this BIP to basically say "all pubkeys
> executed by all CHECKMULTISIG opcodes will be in the following canonical
> order", followed by some explanatory examples of how to apply this
> simple rule.
>
> OTOH we don't yet have a standard way of even talking about arbitrary
> scripts, so it may very well turn out to be the case that the above rule
> is too restrictive in many cases - I certainly would not want to do a
> soft-fork to enforce this, or even make it an IsStandard() rule.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000013cf8270118ba2efce8b304f8de359599fef95c3ab43dcb1
>
--
BlockTrail B.V.
Barbara Strozzilaan 201
1083HN Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 (0)612227277
E-mail: ruben at blocktrail.com
Web: www.blocktrail.com
Github: www.github.com/rubensayshi
BlockTrail B.V. Is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce in
Amsterdam with registration No.:60262060 and VAT No.:NL853833035B01
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150213/a64f7cc8/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:The idea is more like BIP44/45 to have a 'standard' that software can
comply by and express they do
so that it makes a step towards compatibility between (wallet) software.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:13:33PM +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > Where is the Specification section?? Does this support arbitrary
> scripts, or
> > only the simplest CHECKMULTISIG case?
>
> It might be enough to rewrite this BIP to basically say "all pubkeys
> executed by all CHECKMULTISIG opcodes will be in the following canonical
> order", followed by some explanatory examples of how to apply this
> simple rule.
>
> OTOH we don't yet have a standard way of even talking about arbitrary
> scripts, so it may very well turn out to be the case that the above rule
> is too restrictive in many cases - I certainly would not want to do a
> soft-fork to enforce this, or even make it an IsStandard() rule.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 000000000000000013cf8270118ba2efce8b304f8de359599fef95c3ab43dcb1
>
--
BlockTrail B.V.
Barbara Strozzilaan 201
1083HN Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 (0)612227277
E-mail: ruben at blocktrail.com
Web: www.blocktrail.com
Github: www.github.com/rubensayshi
BlockTrail B.V. Is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce in
Amsterdam with registration No.:60262060 and VAT No.:NL853833035B01
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150213/a64f7cc8/attachment.html>;