Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-09-30 📝 Original message:I've put together a first ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-09-30
📝 Original message:I've put together a first draft for what I hope to be a good next step for
Segwit and Bitcoin scripting:
https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/witnessv1/bip-witnessv1.mediawiki
This introduces 5 key changes:
1. Minor versions for witnesses, inside the witness itself. Essentially the
witness [major] version 1 simply indicates the witness commitment is SHA256d,
and nothing more.
The remaining two are witness version 1.0 (major 1, minor 0):
2. As previously discussed, undefined opcodes immediately cause the script to
exit with success, making future opcode softforks a lot more flexible.
3. If the final stack element is not exactly true or false, it is interpreted
as a tail-call Script and executed. (Credit to Mark Friedenbach)
4. A new shorter fixed-length signature format, eliminating the need to guess
the signature size in advance. All signatures are 65 bytes, unless a condition
script is included (see #5).
5. The ability for signatures to commit to additional conditions, expressed in
the form of a serialized Script in the signature itself. This would be useful
in combination with OP_CHECKBLOCKATHEIGHT (BIP 115), hopefully ending the
whole replay protection argument by introducing it early to Bitcoin before any
further splits.
This last part is a big ugly right now: the signature must commit to the
script interpreter flags and internal "sigversion", which basically serve the
same purpose. The reason for this, is that otherwise someone could move the
signature to a different context in an attempt to exploit differences in the
various Script interpretation modes. I don't consider the BIP deployable
without this getting resolved, but I'm not sure what the best approach would
be. Maybe it should be replaced with a witness [major] version and witness
stack?
There is also draft code implementing [the consensus side of] this:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...luke-jr:witnessv1
Thoughts? Anything I've overlooked / left missing that would be
uncontroversial and desirable? (Is any of this unexpectedly controversial for
some reason?)
Luke
📝 Original message:I've put together a first draft for what I hope to be a good next step for
Segwit and Bitcoin scripting:
https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/witnessv1/bip-witnessv1.mediawiki
This introduces 5 key changes:
1. Minor versions for witnesses, inside the witness itself. Essentially the
witness [major] version 1 simply indicates the witness commitment is SHA256d,
and nothing more.
The remaining two are witness version 1.0 (major 1, minor 0):
2. As previously discussed, undefined opcodes immediately cause the script to
exit with success, making future opcode softforks a lot more flexible.
3. If the final stack element is not exactly true or false, it is interpreted
as a tail-call Script and executed. (Credit to Mark Friedenbach)
4. A new shorter fixed-length signature format, eliminating the need to guess
the signature size in advance. All signatures are 65 bytes, unless a condition
script is included (see #5).
5. The ability for signatures to commit to additional conditions, expressed in
the form of a serialized Script in the signature itself. This would be useful
in combination with OP_CHECKBLOCKATHEIGHT (BIP 115), hopefully ending the
whole replay protection argument by introducing it early to Bitcoin before any
further splits.
This last part is a big ugly right now: the signature must commit to the
script interpreter flags and internal "sigversion", which basically serve the
same purpose. The reason for this, is that otherwise someone could move the
signature to a different context in an attempt to exploit differences in the
various Script interpretation modes. I don't consider the BIP deployable
without this getting resolved, but I'm not sure what the best approach would
be. Maybe it should be replaced with a witness [major] version and witness
stack?
There is also draft code implementing [the consensus side of] this:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...luke-jr:witnessv1
Thoughts? Anything I've overlooked / left missing that would be
uncontroversial and desirable? (Is any of this unexpectedly controversial for
some reason?)
Luke