š
Original date posted:2015-06-08
š Original message:On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:25:40PM -0700, Danny Thorpe wrote:
> FWIW, The Open Assets colored coin protocol (CoinPrism) places special
> significance on the zeroth input and the position of the OP_RETURN colored
> coin marker output to distinguish colored coin issuance outputs from
> transfer outputs. Reordering the inputs or the outputs breaks the colored
> coin representation.
>
> Recommending sorting of the inputs and outputs as a best practice is fine
> (and better than random, IMO), but not as part of IsStandard() or consensus
> rules. There are cases where the order of the inputs and outputs is
> significant.
Timestamping is another case where order matters: if you put the digest
in the last vout you can use SHA256 midstate's to reduce the size of the
timestamp proof.
Anyway, there's no reason to rush re: changes to IsStandard()
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150608/6b176e01/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:36:43
in reply to nevent1qā¦d4sx
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:36:43Event JSON
{
"id": "9e90e2e962782c7464549110813fc024687256e0b352588cd29bb70f210b6840",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686152203,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"981f41da2a008fa33b1384e8dd3f0d4a96b7f3bed5c463f00f9032a495226e9c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"17278c565ecd7b06e467e98b0aea4210c167edb3a59fd65ada0770d8dbceeaa8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"05208c76c935dd1274b15b261067b86262a0ebeef3ef6cd223b4a692feee2b8f"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-08\nš Original message:On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 02:25:40PM -0700, Danny Thorpe wrote:\n\u003e FWIW, The Open Assets colored coin protocol (CoinPrism) places special\n\u003e significance on the zeroth input and the position of the OP_RETURN colored\n\u003e coin marker output to distinguish colored coin issuance outputs from\n\u003e transfer outputs. Reordering the inputs or the outputs breaks the colored\n\u003e coin representation.\n\u003e \n\u003e Recommending sorting of the inputs and outputs as a best practice is fine\n\u003e (and better than random, IMO), but not as part of IsStandard() or consensus\n\u003e rules. There are cases where the order of the inputs and outputs is\n\u003e significant.\n\nTimestamping is another case where order matters: if you put the digest\nin the last vout you can use SHA256 midstate's to reduce the size of the\ntimestamp proof.\n\nAnyway, there's no reason to rush re: changes to IsStandard()\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150608/6b176e01/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "2456c2e17c86dfa1e21ec3f3efe89b17701b55201ca8aade21cf67dccba86526c1760127d8c44b12ad394a86ab143e8b38fe5d16115a0d0cb70eeb358488d8d8"
}