📅 Original date posted:2017-04-26
📝 Original message: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.
> 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.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 18:00:32
in reply to nevent1q…hyf9
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 18:00:32Event JSON
{
"id": "3259e0c78f42bff57ebf1adb61cfd4768b744101de28865ee703dc12b0c95ad1",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686160832,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"b2e271630ada747e7675f2dbedf7f4e89d042296cfe7851a4a9e00682faad187",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"70b8d2794180bd0e485db1dcf2fbaa4b99472af7e89ef45911b32d5cf6c5ecec",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-04-26\n📝 Original message:On Wednesday 26 April 2017 7:31:38 PM Johnson Lau wrote:\n\u003e I prefer not to do anything that requires pools software upgrade or wallet\n\u003e upgrade. So I prefer to keep the dummy marker, and not change the\n\u003e commitment structure as suggested by another post.\n\nFair enough, I guess. Although I think the dummy marker could actually be non-\nconsensus critical so long as the hashing replaces it with a 0.\n\n\u003e For your second suggestion, I think we should keep scriptSig empty as that\n\u003e should be obsoleted. If you want to put something in scriptSig, you should\n\u003e put it in witness instead.\n\nThere are things scriptSig can do that witness cannot today - specifically add \nadditional conditions under the signature. We can always obsolete scriptSig \nlater, after segwit has provided an alternative way to do this.\n\n\u003e Maybe we could restrict witness to IsPushOnly() scriptPubKey, so miners\n\u003e can’t put garbage to legacy txs.\n\nThey already can malleate transactions and add garbage to the blocks. I don't \nsee the benefit here.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "070c619142db60461380096f9b13024bea21ebe2251da9ca41203e54dd05b94cfc8dcf2c0ebc6aaa162e170f9b117ae2ee4b024cc01df96b0d87b98034903973"
}