Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-05-13 📝 Original message:I think this needs more ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-05-13
📝 Original message:I think this needs more details before it gets a BIP number; for example,
which opcodes does this affect, and how, exactly, does it affect them? Is
the merkle root in the block header computed using normalized transaction
ids or normalized ids?

I think there might actually be two or three or four BIPs here:

+ Overall "what is trying to be accomplished"
+ Changes to the OP_*SIG* opcodes
+ Changes to the bloom-filtering SPV support
+ ...eventually, hard fork rollout plan

I also think that it is a good idea to have actually implemented a proposal
before getting a BIP number. At least, I find that actually writing the
code often turns up issues I hadn't considered when thinking about the
problem at a high level. And I STRONGLY believe BIPs should be descriptive
("here is how this thing works") not proscriptive ("here's how I think we
should all do it").

Finally: I like the idea of moving to a normalized txid. But it might make
sense to bundle that change with a bigger change to OP_CHECKSIG; see Greg
Maxwell's excellent talk about his current thoughts on that topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs9lJTRZCDc


On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this is a good way to handle things, but as you say, it is a hard
> fork.
>
> CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY covers many of the use cases, but it would be nice to
> fix malleability once and for all.
>
> This has the effect of doubling the size of the UTXO database. At
> minimum, there needs to be a legacy txid to normalized txid map in the
> database.
>
> An addition to the BIP would eliminate the need for the 2nd index. You
> could require a SPV proof of the spending transaction to be included with
> legacy transactions. This would allow clients to verify that the
> normalized txid matched the legacy id.
>
> The OutPoint would be {LegacyId | SPV Proof to spending tx | spending tx
> | index}. This allows a legacy transaction to be upgraded. OutPoints
> which use a normalized txid don't need the SPV proof.
>
> The hard fork would be followed by a transitional period, in which both
> txids could be used. Afterwards, legacy transactions have to have the SPV
> proof added. This means that old transactions with locktimes years in the
> future can be upgraded for spending, without nodes needing to maintain two
> indexes.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>


--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150513/01cccf57/attachment.html>;