Daniel Robinson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-11-03 📝 Original message:Really cool! How about ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-11-03
📝 Original message:Really cool!
How about "poison transactions," the other covenants use case proposed by
Möser, Eyal, and Sirer? (I think OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY will also make
it easier to check fraud proofs, the other prerequisite for poison
transactions.)
Seems a little wasteful to do those two "unnecessary" signature checks, and
to have to construct the entire transaction data structure, just to verify
a single output in the transaction. Any plans to add more flexible
introspection opcodes to Elements, such as OP_CHECKOUTPUTVERIFY?
Really minor nit: "Notice that we have appended 0x83 to the end of the
transaction data"—should this say "to the end of the signature"?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:28 AM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Right. There are minor trade-offs to be made with regards to that design
point of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Fortunately this covenant
construction isn't sensitive to that choice and can be made to work with
either implementation of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Johnson Lau <jl2012 at xbt.hk> wrote:
Interesting. I have implemented OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in a different
way from the Elements. Instead of hashing the data on stack, I directly put
the 32 byte hash to the stack. This should be more flexible as not every
system are using double-SHA256
https://github.com/jl2012/bitcoin/commits/mast_v3_master
On 3 Nov 2016, at 01:30, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi all,
It is possible to implement covenants using two script extensions: OP_CAT
and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Both of these op codes are already
available in the Elements Alpha sidechain, so it is possible to construct
covenants in Elements Alpha today. I have detailed how the construction
works in a blog post at <
https://blockstream.com/2016/11/02/covenants-in-elements-alpha.html>;. As
an example, I've constructed scripts for the Moeser-Eyal-Sirer vault.
I'm interested in collecting and implementing other useful covenants, so if
people have ideas, please post them.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
--
Russell O'Connor
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161103/32c6918b/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Really cool!
How about "poison transactions," the other covenants use case proposed by
Möser, Eyal, and Sirer? (I think OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY will also make
it easier to check fraud proofs, the other prerequisite for poison
transactions.)
Seems a little wasteful to do those two "unnecessary" signature checks, and
to have to construct the entire transaction data structure, just to verify
a single output in the transaction. Any plans to add more flexible
introspection opcodes to Elements, such as OP_CHECKOUTPUTVERIFY?
Really minor nit: "Notice that we have appended 0x83 to the end of the
transaction data"—should this say "to the end of the signature"?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:28 AM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Right. There are minor trade-offs to be made with regards to that design
point of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Fortunately this covenant
construction isn't sensitive to that choice and can be made to work with
either implementation of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Johnson Lau <jl2012 at xbt.hk> wrote:
Interesting. I have implemented OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in a different
way from the Elements. Instead of hashing the data on stack, I directly put
the 32 byte hash to the stack. This should be more flexible as not every
system are using double-SHA256
https://github.com/jl2012/bitcoin/commits/mast_v3_master
On 3 Nov 2016, at 01:30, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi all,
It is possible to implement covenants using two script extensions: OP_CAT
and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Both of these op codes are already
available in the Elements Alpha sidechain, so it is possible to construct
covenants in Elements Alpha today. I have detailed how the construction
works in a blog post at <
https://blockstream.com/2016/11/02/covenants-in-elements-alpha.html>;. As
an example, I've constructed scripts for the Moeser-Eyal-Sirer vault.
I'm interested in collecting and implementing other useful covenants, so if
people have ideas, please post them.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
--
Russell O'Connor
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161103/32c6918b/attachment-0001.html>;