📅 Original date posted:2018-08-13 📝 Original message:Hi, Since the BIP is ...

Achow101 [ARCHIVE] /

npub1wh7…26cj

2023-06-07 18:14:05

in reply to nevent1q…0k4f

📅 Original date posted:2018-08-13
📝 Original message:Hi,

Since the BIP is already in proposed status, I think that we should specify the non-witness utxo to just be "witness or non-witness" serialization. This maintains compatibility with things that have already implemented but also maintains the forwards compatibility that is needed.

Andrew

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On August 13, 2018 11:56 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> BIP174 currently specifies that non-witness UTXOs (the transactions
> being spent by non-witness inputs) should be serialized in network
> format.
>
> I believe there are two issues with this.
>
> 1. Even in case the transaction whose output being spent itself has a
> witness, this witness is immaterial to PSBT. It's only there to be
> able to verify the txid commits to the output/amount being spent,
> which can be done without witness.
>
> 2. "Network format" is a bit ambiguous. We can imagine a future
> softfork that introduces a new type of witness. Network format could
> be interpreted as including that new witness type, which is clearly
> unnecessary (by the above argument), and would gratuitously break
> compatibility with existing signers if implemented pedantically.
>
> So my suggestion is to update the specification to state that
> non-witness UTXOs must be serialized without witness. If it's too late
> for that, it should instead be updated to explicitly specify with or
> witnout witness, but it's safe to drop the witness.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
>
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Author Public Key

npub1wh7lmdsh2r0ygnp39pk7k5a7mll5x5w44pwn6ekvdvmwjhazr5rqxd26cj

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:14:05

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "0c1a9a4c7c38d7dc66d1b91789691d3bb51589d52077101fb0aeb33bbd026241", "pubkey": "75fdfdb61750de444c31286deb53bedfff4351d5a85d3d66cc6b36e95fa21d06", "created_at": 1686161645, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "3eadfae6a1cfc20ea21865dfe774342025af5ea68f084594b06eae611cd677bf", "", "root" ], [ "e", "e15f35897346560144aa109190eb47c0c9bf8aced0f3cff26196c5a5584d04f0", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-08-13\n📝 Original message:Hi,\n\nSince the BIP is already in proposed status, I think that we should specify the non-witness utxo to just be \"witness or non-witness\" serialization. This maintains compatibility with things that have already implemented but also maintains the forwards compatibility that is needed.\n\nAndrew\n\n\n‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐\nOn August 13, 2018 11:56 AM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hello all,\n\u003e\n\u003e BIP174 currently specifies that non-witness UTXOs (the transactions\n\u003e being spent by non-witness inputs) should be serialized in network\n\u003e format.\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe there are two issues with this.\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. Even in case the transaction whose output being spent itself has a\n\u003e witness, this witness is immaterial to PSBT. It's only there to be\n\u003e able to verify the txid commits to the output/amount being spent,\n\u003e which can be done without witness.\n\u003e\n\u003e 2. \"Network format\" is a bit ambiguous. We can imagine a future\n\u003e softfork that introduces a new type of witness. Network format could\n\u003e be interpreted as including that new witness type, which is clearly\n\u003e unnecessary (by the above argument), and would gratuitously break\n\u003e compatibility with existing signers if implemented pedantically.\n\u003e\n\u003e So my suggestion is to update the specification to state that\n\u003e non-witness UTXOs must be serialized without witness. If it's too late\n\u003e for that, it should instead be updated to explicitly specify with or\n\u003e witnout witness, but it's safe to drop the witness.\n\u003e\n\u003e Opinions?\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Pieter\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev", "sig": "f5a71fdc9e8c428c690d12fc6583b12d580a3df256eabd6345f965d56c9ed4c394180a55e5e790282ac0308cbdd59f5e6c134ca121a898f9d50a514150d936d3" }