📅 Original date posted:2019-06-05
📝 Original message:On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.
I think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in
with the existing opcode naming by calling it something like
"OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,
consisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash
value corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,
which I think sounds a bit like "SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL"
FWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure
the digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.
Cheers,
aj
Anthony Towns [ARCHIVE] /
npub17r…x9l2h
2023-06-07 18:18:26
in reply to nevent1q…8eac
Author Public Key
npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2hPublished at
2023-06-07 18:18:26Event JSON
{
"id": "71018870ed589842f7f3407d393b0907b87690708bae855cccf1fe8c068d521e",
"pubkey": "f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab",
"created_at": 1686161906,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"795f91cf98a58a02bc008ff719dc0f4282d730c0208950ac096ead04dbb580b7",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6764de98d162e45bb22805fc75bdbd1ac3b93f754a6dcd4b7509d1ed8533e61a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"01f53a3166b3b23139201763777e070fcfed5555ad7555f7e90114c0c9e0e8b4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-06-05\n📝 Original message:On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e OP_CHECKOUTPUTSHASHVERIFY is retracted in favor of OP_SECURETHEBAG*.\n\nI think you could generalise that slightly and make it fit in\nwith the existing opcode naming by calling it something like\n\"OP_CHECKTXDIGESTVERIFY\" and pull a 33-byte value from the stack,\nconsisting of a sha256 hash and a sighash-byte, and adding a new sighash\nvalue corresponding to the set of info you want to include in the hash,\nwhich I think sounds a bit like \"SIGHASH_EXACTLY_ONE_INPUT | SIGHASH_ALL\"\n\nFWIW, I'm not really seeing any reason to complicate the spec to ensure\nthe digest is precommitted as part of the opcode.\n\nCheers,\naj",
"sig": "e21046c02a9708460ddcc7f0bed185662bd1d2ced3adffdd51f471ac1b74721f74a4e059123065c686b0813232fab654c077b2ccea9f2870c2068b96113587fd"
}