Andy Parkins [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-01-31 📝 Original message:Hello, Gulp. Am a little ...

📅 Original date posted:2012-01-31
📝 Original message:Hello,

Gulp. Am a little nervous about wading into this swamp. However, it seems
to me that the debate has veered into the personal and away from the
technical. Surely if there are objections to both suggestions, that another
solution might be better? The answer doesn't have to be A or B, if the
answer C turns out to be acceptable.

That being said; I am not confident enough to start making BIPs so I offer
this idea up for my traditional mailing-list roasting but with the hope that
I blindly stumble toward something more acceptable to everyone.

----

If the change is going to be a big one anyway and will require a client
upgrade why not...

- Increase the version number in transactions to make a new transaction
structure
- Dump the "scriptPubKey" field completely. Everything will be pay-to-
script-hash in version2 transactions
- Replace it with "hashOfClaimingScript"
- Add an "unsignedParameters" array.

hashOfClaimingScript is _not_ script. It's just the hash of the script that
is allowed to claim the output. Then before scriptSig is allowed to run, it
is hashed and compared against the hashOfClaimingScript.

unsignedParameters replaces the need for all the crazy messing around that
OP_CHECKSIG currently does because it is specifically a block of the
transaction that it not signed (although I would include the array size bytes
in the signature calculation), therefore no script filtering is necessary.

The claiming script, scriptSig, can then be checked against whatever list of
templates you like. For pay-to-address it will probably look like:

OP_PUSHPARAMETER {0}
OP_PUSH { <claimant public key> }
OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY

Handling the more complicated transactions (they're the point of all this
after all) is pretty obvious; the unsignedParameters block can hold as many
signatures as you like. It also removes the need for OP_CHECKMULTISIG, since
the script can specify the signature conditions. e.g. a 2-of-3 script:

OP_PUSHPARMETER {0}
OP_PUSH { <claimant public key0> }
OP_CHECKSIG
OP_PUSHPARMETER {1}
OP_PUSH { <claimant public key1> }
OP_CHECKSIG
OP_PUSHPARMETER {1}
OP_PUSH { <claimant public key1> }
OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ADD
OP_ADD
OP_PUSH {1}
OP_GREATERTHAN

(I'm sure someone cleverer than I can improve on the above)

-----

Let the flaming commence...



Andy

--
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120131/b2ee00aa/attachment.sig>;