📅 Original date posted:2016-11-03
📝 Original message:Really cool!
How about "poison transactions," the other covenants use case proposed by
Möser, Eyal, and Sirer? (I think OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY will also make
it easier to check fraud proofs, the other prerequisite for poison
transactions.)
Seems a little wasteful to do those two "unnecessary" signature checks, and
to have to construct the entire transaction data structure, just to verify
a single output in the transaction. Any plans to add more flexible
introspection opcodes to Elements, such as OP_CHECKOUTPUTVERIFY?
Really minor nit: "Notice that we have appended 0x83 to the end of the
transaction data"—should this say "to the end of the signature"?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:28 AM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Right. There are minor trade-offs to be made with regards to that design
point of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Fortunately this covenant
construction isn't sensitive to that choice and can be made to work with
either implementation of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Johnson Lau <jl2012 at xbt.hk> wrote:
Interesting. I have implemented OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in a different
way from the Elements. Instead of hashing the data on stack, I directly put
the 32 byte hash to the stack. This should be more flexible as not every
system are using double-SHA256
https://github.com/jl2012/bitcoin/commits/mast_v3_master
On 3 Nov 2016, at 01:30, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi all,
It is possible to implement covenants using two script extensions: OP_CAT
and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Both of these op codes are already
available in the Elements Alpha sidechain, so it is possible to construct
covenants in Elements Alpha today. I have detailed how the construction
works in a blog post at <
https://blockstream.com/2016/11/02/covenants-in-elements-alpha.html>;. As
an example, I've constructed scripts for the Moeser-Eyal-Sirer vault.
I'm interested in collecting and implementing other useful covenants, so if
people have ideas, please post them.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer.
--
Russell O'Connor
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161103/32c6918b/attachment-0001.html>;
Daniel Robinson [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hy…7jzt2
2023-06-07 17:54:14
in reply to nevent1q…cqxc
Author Public Key
npub1hy94r8apyzhxsdl76rtgspps5sdg2d9darnyzlrcfqcwjl073trqc7jzt2Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:14Event JSON
{
"id": "823e89e04e708abe299b4291b398d085214089cf163fa2c85e8190b6cd732bc1",
"pubkey": "b90b519fa120ae6837fed0d6880430a41a8534ade8e6417c784830e97dfe8ac6",
"created_at": 1686160454,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"61f5e2d52a76b3becccbcade7f95e36346221f1a7928d7d866ff31e2f47d30b0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"013f7c8c81f3ad970480f304b3e19ec24937c66c6f01b84a91d77138f9c9bab8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-11-03\n📝 Original message:Really cool!\n\nHow about \"poison transactions,\" the other covenants use case proposed by\nMöser, Eyal, and Sirer? (I think OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY will also make\nit easier to check fraud proofs, the other prerequisite for poison\ntransactions.)\n\nSeems a little wasteful to do those two \"unnecessary\" signature checks, and\nto have to construct the entire transaction data structure, just to verify\na single output in the transaction. Any plans to add more flexible\nintrospection opcodes to Elements, such as OP_CHECKOUTPUTVERIFY?\n\nReally minor nit: \"Notice that we have appended 0x83 to the end of the\ntransaction data\"—should this say \"to the end of the signature\"?\n\nOn Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:28 AM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\nRight. There are minor trade-offs to be made with regards to that design\npoint of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Fortunately this covenant\nconstruction isn't sensitive to that choice and can be made to work with\neither implementation of OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY.\n\nOn Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Johnson Lau \u003cjl2012 at xbt.hk\u003e wrote:\n\nInteresting. I have implemented OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in a different\nway from the Elements. Instead of hashing the data on stack, I directly put\nthe 32 byte hash to the stack. This should be more flexible as not every\nsystem are using double-SHA256\n\nhttps://github.com/jl2012/bitcoin/commits/mast_v3_master\n\n\nOn 3 Nov 2016, at 01:30, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\nHi all,\n\nIt is possible to implement covenants using two script extensions: OP_CAT\nand OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY. Both of these op codes are already\navailable in the Elements Alpha sidechain, so it is possible to construct\ncovenants in Elements Alpha today. I have detailed how the construction\nworks in a blog post at \u003c\nhttps://blockstream.com/2016/11/02/covenants-in-elements-alpha.html\u003e. As\nan example, I've constructed scripts for the Moeser-Eyal-Sirer vault.\n\nI'm interested in collecting and implementing other useful covenants, so if\npeople have ideas, please post them.\n\nIf there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer.\n\n-- \nRussell O'Connor\n_______________________________________________\nbitcoin-dev mailing list\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n_______________________________________________\nbitcoin-dev mailing list\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161103/32c6918b/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "9923f08289165dad5b97ea1732a9565f520413a425e7b9f5587e697387c3e8e85693ccd4716ecfc92afc2faf904337bae521f7fb30b266d9d3f8a3dfd0cc2226"
}