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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
