📅 Original date posted:2021-04-16 📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at ...

Andrew Poelstra [ARCHIVE] /

npub1ae2…5t04

2023-06-07 18:31:35

in reply to nevent1q…thrc

📅 Original date posted:2021-04-16
📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:34:33PM +0000, Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This sounds like a good justification to remove the legacy multi-signature
> capabilities as well.
>

Doing so would confiscate coins, and also it is impossible to remove
legacy multisignatures in general without gutting almost all of Script.

> >> Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting
> arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage
> people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use
> the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.
>
> You can't make it completely impossible to do that, but you can make it
> harder and at the same time you can provide a solution for doing what they
> want to do.
>

I don't think you can even make it harder in a meaningful sense. There is
too much flexibility in transaction data.

--
Andrew Poelstra
Director of Research, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

The sun is always shining in space
-Justin Lewis-Webster

Author Public Key

npub1ae27kq6z802dkqw4ey4dgdx493szm8dpmcm76d7vt0ma9gf6fj4svz5t04

Seen on

wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:31:35

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "efd4e1a0b14197df92b98e8aa3b5457919ab09725ff8356f381dce067d5aecb8", "pubkey": "ee55eb03423bd4db01d5c92ad434d52c602d9da1de37ed37cc5bf7d2a13a4cab", "created_at": 1686162695, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "05257ee76521a4b0a7a99d485b789d700ff2df92d74daa2032d8f5697bc9d8ff", "", "root" ], [ "e", "2ad6d1b6a9944db7699077c5ea8578e1d887b0e0842abf1f90ca8aa9e2eb6543", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "06e19906f916a6156c854f2afb48b99e8eda27b187ba1af3fecdcbdcf3f2e411" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-16\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:34:33PM +0000, Christopher Gilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e This sounds like a good justification to remove the legacy multi-signature\n\u003e capabilities as well.\n\u003e\n\nDoing so would confiscate coins, and also it is impossible to remove\nlegacy multisignatures in general without gutting almost all of Script.\n \n\u003e \u003e\u003e Thus, given that it is otherwise impossible to stop people from putting\n\u003e arbitrary data values into their transactions, then we rather encourage\n\u003e people who are going to encode their arbitrary data in transaction to use\n\u003e the OP_RETURN outputs in order to avoid UTXO bloat.\n\u003e \n\u003e You can't make it completely impossible to do that, but you can make it\n\u003e harder and at the same time you can provide a solution for doing what they\n\u003e want to do.\n\u003e\n\nI don't think you can even make it harder in a meaningful sense. There is\ntoo much flexibility in transaction data.\n \n-- \nAndrew Poelstra\nDirector of Research, Blockstream\nEmail: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net\nWeb: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew\n\nThe sun is always shining in space\n -Justin Lewis-Webster", "sig": "641c3c471156dcf6bbb3acaffb115dc1aa8d427f363e3bcf074410ea43a21771c698a2ba8875e3fb1bc367975f79e1e390893859e607d1d561e6addd16254b61" }