📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24
📝 Original message:> This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all
> UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be
> a signature of some kind of message to that effect.
I think this is true. Not *all* transactions will be able to match the
wildcard. For instance if someone sent some crazy smart contract tx to
your address, the script associated with that tx will be such that it
will not apply to the wildcard. Most "vanilla" utxos that I've seen
have the formula: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 [a hash corresponding to your
address] OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG". Just UTXOs in that form could
apply to the wildcard.
On 11/24/15, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> What is required to spend bitcoin is that input be provided to the UTXO
> script that causes it to return true. What Chris is proposing breaks the
> programmatic nature of the requirement, replacing it with a requirement
> that the secret be known. Granted, the secret is the only requirement in
> most cases, but there is no built-in assumption that the script always
> requires only that secret.
>
> This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all
> UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be
> a signature of some kind of message to that effect. I imagine the cost of
> re-scanning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extra
> mining fee for any transaction that used this opcode.
>
> Please be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email makes
> clear.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY**
>>
>>
>> Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting
>> near near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links):
>> http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log
>>
>> - Bryan
>> http://heybryan.org/
>> 1 512 203 0507
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
> techie?
> I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com>; and Meme Racing
> <http://www.memeracing.net>; (in alpha).
> I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com>; which
> now accepts Bitcoin.
> I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>;.
> "He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
> Nakamoto
>
Chris Priest [ARCHIVE] /
npub18d…xccej
2023-06-07 17:45:13
in reply to nevent1q…qdrp
Author Public Key
npub18df3zgqr9zt5ah42zpd34rmq6fp7v57vvwmtk20krhrfdczp38ks5xccejPublished at
2023-06-07 17:45:13Event JSON
{
"id": "a2e97efc71237445114e598791c9d330616849d5e81f991f1d820e69f38062a1",
"pubkey": "3b5311200328974edeaa105b1a8f60d243e653cc63b6bb29f61dc696e04189ed",
"created_at": 1686159913,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bf4809cae02e8295ff1b511081cddea17791dccae1a87a2654644d42bcc4eb89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5d5966133613855670c5d788bca2d4c199588fe808165f225d77de420b124501",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a384795310cea1937dda4d01ee8f14ca734b9a7ab60c62114a5656706e15e47f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24\n📝 Original message:\u003e This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all\n\u003e UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be\n\u003e a signature of some kind of message to that effect.\n\nI think this is true. Not *all* transactions will be able to match the\nwildcard. For instance if someone sent some crazy smart contract tx to\nyour address, the script associated with that tx will be such that it\nwill not apply to the wildcard. Most \"vanilla\" utxos that I've seen\nhave the formula: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 [a hash corresponding to your\naddress] OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG\". Just UTXOs in that form could\napply to the wildcard.\n\nOn 11/24/15, Dave Scotese via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e What is required to spend bitcoin is that input be provided to the UTXO\n\u003e script that causes it to return true. What Chris is proposing breaks the\n\u003e programmatic nature of the requirement, replacing it with a requirement\n\u003e that the secret be known. Granted, the secret is the only requirement in\n\u003e most cases, but there is no built-in assumption that the script always\n\u003e requires only that secret.\n\u003e\n\u003e This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all\n\u003e UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be\n\u003e a signature of some kind of message to that effect. I imagine the cost of\n\u003e re-scanning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extra\n\u003e mining fee for any transaction that used this opcode.\n\u003e\n\u003e Please be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email makes\n\u003e clear.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY**\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting\n\u003e\u003e near near \"09:50\" (apologies for having no anchor links):\n\u003e\u003e http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - Bryan\n\u003e\u003e http://heybryan.org/\n\u003e\u003e 1 512 203 0507\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a\n\u003e techie?\n\u003e I own Litmocracy \u003chttp://www.litmocracy.com\u003e and Meme Racing\n\u003e \u003chttp://www.memeracing.net\u003e (in alpha).\n\u003e I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist \u003chttp://www.voluntaryist.com\u003e which\n\u003e now accepts Bitcoin.\n\u003e I also code for The Dollar Vigilante \u003chttp://dollarvigilante.com/\u003e.\n\u003e \"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules\" - Satoshi\n\u003e Nakamoto\n\u003e",
"sig": "a72c7c713f40e4ff9551a3d1d402fddc75712b2f74783c90f72f4f91d44b90a7b4f0baa3fc92574793e85b82c44622c34820a8b2113b922db5f757e6c8bb67d9"
}