Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-11-21 📝 Original message:On Monday, 21 November ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-11-21
📝 Original message:On Monday, 21 November 2016 10:54:19 CET Russell O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.
>
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The OP_CHECKSIG is the most well known and, as its name implies, it
> > validates a signature.
> > In the new version of 'script' (version 2) the data that is signed is
> > changed to be equivalent to the transaction-id. This is a massive
> > simplification and also the only change between version 1 and version 2
> > of script.
>
> I'm a fan of simplicity too; Unfortunately, your proposal above to change
> the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG is too naive.
Thanks for your email, Russell.
Unfortunately you waited 6 weeks with writing this and the problem you are
seeing has been fixed quite some time ago.
Thanks again for reviewing, though!
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
📝 Original message:On Monday, 21 November 2016 10:54:19 CET Russell O'Connor wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.
>
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > The OP_CHECKSIG is the most well known and, as its name implies, it
> > validates a signature.
> > In the new version of 'script' (version 2) the data that is signed is
> > changed to be equivalent to the transaction-id. This is a massive
> > simplification and also the only change between version 1 and version 2
> > of script.
>
> I'm a fan of simplicity too; Unfortunately, your proposal above to change
> the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG is too naive.
Thanks for your email, Russell.
Unfortunately you waited 6 weeks with writing this and the problem you are
seeing has been fixed quite some time ago.
Thanks again for reviewing, though!
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel