📅 Original date posted:2017-04-26
📝 Original message:> On 27 Apr 2017, at 04:01, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote:
>> I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet
>> upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the
>> commitment structure as suggested by another post.
>
> Fair enough, I guess. Although I think the dummy marker could actually be non-
> consensus critical so long as the hashing replaces it with a 0.
>
>> For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as that
>> should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you should
>> put it in witness instead.
>
> There are things scriptSig can do that witness cannot today - specifically add
> additional conditions under the signature. We can always obsolete scriptSig
> later, after segwit has provided an alternative way to do this.
You can do this with witness too, which is also cheaper. Just need to make sure the signature covers a special part of the witness. I will make a proposal to Litecoin soon, which allows signing and executing extra scripts in witness. Useful for things like OP_PUSHBLOCKHASH
>
>> Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so miners
>> can’t put garbage to legacy txs.
>
> They already can malleate transactions and add garbage to the blocks. I don't
> see the benefit here.
Witness is cheaper and bigger
>
> Luke
Johnson Lau [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fy…p2mv9
2023-06-07 18:00:33
in reply to nevent1q…kwcn
Author Public Key
npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:33Event JSON
{
"id": "7806b4802d29589fccafe1410c06be423f7c9736b14137334e2ff4f4b01901a3",
"pubkey": "492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7",
"created_at": 1686160833,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b2e271630ada747e7675f2dbedf7f4e89d042296cfe7851a4a9e00682faad187",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3259e0c78f42bff57ebf1adb61cfd4768b744101de28865ee703dc12b0c95ad1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-26\n📝 Original message:\u003e On 27 Apr 2017, at 04:01, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet\n\u003e\u003e upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the\n\u003e\u003e commitment structure as suggested by another post.\n\u003e \n\u003e Fair enough, I guess. Although I think the dummy marker could actually be non-\n\u003e consensus critical so long as the hashing replaces it with a 0.\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as that\n\u003e\u003e should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you should\n\u003e\u003e put it in witness instead.\n\u003e \n\u003e There are things scriptSig can do that witness cannot today - specifically add \n\u003e additional conditions under the signature. We can always obsolete scriptSig \n\u003e later, after segwit has provided an alternative way to do this.\n\nYou can do this with witness too, which is also cheaper. Just need to make sure the signature covers a special part of the witness. I will make a proposal to Litecoin soon, which allows signing and executing extra scripts in witness. Useful for things like OP_PUSHBLOCKHASH\n\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so miners\n\u003e\u003e can’t put garbage to legacy txs.\n\u003e \n\u003e They already can malleate transactions and add garbage to the blocks. I don't \n\u003e see the benefit here.\n\nWitness is cheaper and bigger\n\n\u003e \n\u003e Luke",
"sig": "0a5fe616153b8436bf962c28df18ac8258f1365d996c1585d6c8f03f6cfa387fdbc8ab69c7fc01a08d171a3165a5a1f1dbf1b60c6edd317eef214f8e5b773acc"
}