Andy Parkins [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-02-01 📝 Original message:On 2012 January 31 ...

📅 Original date posted:2012-02-01
📝 Original message:On 2012 January 31 Tuesday, Andy Parkins wrote:

> - Increase the version number in transactions to make a new transaction
> structure
> - Dump the "scriptPubKey" field completely. Everything will be pay-to-
> script-hash in version2 transactions
> - Replace it with "hashOfClaimingScript"
> - Add an "unsignedParameters" array.

Having thought about it; I've realised that the above is simply BIP16 without
the backward compatibility work in it. If BIP16 renamed the scriptPubKey
field to "hashOfClaimingScript" and no longer ran it as a script, it woudl be
close to identical. We'd simply define the field as

0xa9 0x14 <hashOfClaimingScript> 0x87

Detection of this format of scriptPubKey activates "version2" processing of
the transaction. And similarly, a new definition of scriptSig to be two
fields:

unsignedInitialStackBlock
scriptClaim

I'm sure nobody cares about my opinion; but that's actually been the moment
of epiphany for me (and I raise it here, in case it is for someone else).
Having previously been against BIP16, I'm now happy with BIP16 -- it's a
progression towards the ideal... having a literal claimScriptHash field
instead of scriptPubKey; and never running scriptPubKey.

Potentially OP_CHECKSIG could be simplified as well because the rules could
be "anything that's not the serialized script" in scriptSig is not signed.

I can imagine one day, when the network is all BIP16 compliant, that
scriptPubKey will no longer be allowed to run as script at all.



Andy

--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120201/c2cd486b/attachment.sig>;