Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig, op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
Hi Alan,
I have now read BIP0010 - one first idea is: add a link to it on the wiki (or
remove all bip links from the wiki... - we don't want two places for BIPs...)
I am not sure where you prefer the discussion on the content of the BIP - but
now you get it here, but feel free to redirect...
Likes:
* inclusion of prevout txout scripts - could prove handy
* that it is a proposal to do this similarly on all clients
Dislikes:
* the format - I guess I would prefer a normal JSON format - where the scripts
gets populated step by step. As for the scriptPubKey (now an awful name...) it
would be easy to just add it to the JSON, or have the prevouts simply be the
actual txouts instead of {hash,n}.
Comments:
* it is good to have this proposal, but I think that once we see ways to
communicate it they could very well radically steer how a format should look.
Take e.g. the discussion we had with Gavin yesterday, if we had chosen to move
in that direction BIP0010 would had been useless. So perhaps a bit premature?
Cheers,
Michael
On 10/11/2011, at 04:00, Alan Reiner wrote:
The purpose of creating BIP 0010 now, is to encourage a standard that
developers want to adopt, from the outset. Every developer who is planning
to touch multi-signature transactions, is going to have to solve the problem
of multi-sig tx exchanges, eventually. By offering an excellent solution
before they've started asking the question, there's a good chance people will
use it. Hear me out...
Protocols get fragmented when there's multiple competing ways to do
something, each having some advantages the others don't have. This leads to
developers with differing priorities picking different ones, or creating
their own. However, I believe that the problem BIP 0010 seeks to solve is a
fairly straightforward problem. There's not a lot of variety in the
solutions that could compete against it. People just need a way to pass this
data around, and they want it to be as convenient to use, and as easy to
implement as possible. In that sense, I think BIP 0010 (or some future
variant) is fairly optimal as a building block for higher-level protocols.
If anyone has ideas for why someone would want to create a competing idea to
BIP 0010 (besides not being aware of it when they start), I'd like to discuss
it. I'm fairly confident that any such ideas could just be added to BIP 0010
and thus reset the question of why anyone would need a competing idea.
On 11/09/2011 03:03 PM, Michael Grønager wrote:
My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they
might never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and
this would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it
will be a seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across
different clients. But I share your concern on the
/M
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: grona...@ceptacle.com
Michael Gronager, PhD
Owner Ceptacle / NDGF Director, NORDUnet A/S
Jens Juels Gade 33
2100 Copenhagen E
Mobile: +45 31 62 14 01
E-mail: grona...@ceptacle.com
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] multisig, op_eval and lock_time/sequence...
Michael, thanks for taking time to read the proposal. Responses are
inline, below.
I am not sure where you prefer the discussion on the content of the BIP - but
now you get it here, but feel free to redirect...
Likes:
* inclusion of prevout txout scripts - could prove handy
* that it is a proposal to do this similarly on all clients
The txout scripts are not just handy, they /need/ to be included in the
txin scripts for signing. By putting them there already, the parser
only has to blank out the others txins, add the hashcode, and pass it to
the ECDSA code for signing (if you're not familar with OP_CHECKSIG, see
my diagram here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=29416.0). I
think this feature is *critical* to adoption, as it works for the most
lightweight clients that might not even contain blockheaders --
everything you need to understand and sign the the transaction is
included (except for the txin values).
For that reason, this doubles as a convenient way to do offline
wallets/signing: you don't have to keep transporting 700 MB of
blockchain to the offline computer just so it can sign your transactions.
Dislikes:
* the format - I guess I would prefer a normal JSON format - where the scripts
gets populated step by step. As for the scriptPubKey (now an awful name...) it
would be easy to just add it to the JSON, or have the prevouts simply be the
actual txouts instead of {hash,n}.
I see the benefit of JSON for dynamic information with lots of optional
fields. But this information is fairly static -- if there's extra
information developers need for this process, it can be added. I don't
see a lot of variation in the amount/types of data to be included here.
The core benefit follows PGP messages: compact, easy-to-identify,
blocks of text, that can be included inline in an email as easily as it
can be supplied as a file/attachment, and only requires code that's
already available in a BTC developer toolbox. I can even remove the
numsigs counter, as it's easy enough to search for the END-TXDP line.
Think about a non-developer opening a file and trying to identify it:
JSON looks like code, this looks like... BEGIN-TXDP--- (now that
I think about it, BEGIN-TRANSACTION-9fj3fsQ might be better...)
Comments:
* it is good to have this proposal, but I think that once we see ways to
communicate it they could very well radically steer how a format should look.
Take e.g. the discussion we had with Gavin yesterday, if we had chosen to move
in that direction BIP0010 would had been useless. So perhaps a bit premature?
If we start talking about in-blockchain techniques, I agree with you.
But If that idea is discarded, *all* out-of-band solutions are going to
require encoding this exact information somehow. I think offering this
solution before developers start asking the question of how to do it is
exactly what's needed.
-Alan
Cheers,
Michael
On 10/11/2011, at 04:00, Alan Reiner wrote:
The purpose of creating BIP 0010 now, is to encourage a standard that
developers want to adopt, from the outset. Every developer who is planning to
touch multi-signature transactions, is going to have to solve the problem of
multi-sig tx exchanges, eventually. By offering an excellent solution before
they've started asking the question, there's a good chance people will use it.
Hear me out...
Protocols get fragmented when there's multiple competing ways to do something,
each having some advantages the others don't have. This leads to developers
with differing priorities picking different ones, or creating their own.
However, I believe that the problem BIP 0010 seeks to solve is a fairly
straightforward problem. There's not a lot of variety in the solutions that
could compete against it. People just need a way to pass this data around, and
they want it to be as convenient to use, and as easy to implement as possible.
In that sense, I think BIP 0010 (or some future variant) is fairly optimal as a
building block for higher-level protocols.
If anyone has ideas for why someone would want to create a competing idea to
BIP 0010 (besides not being aware of it when they start), I'd like to discuss
it. I'm fairly confident that any such ideas could just be added to BIP 0010
and thus reset the question of why anyone would need a competing idea.
On 11/09/2011 03:03 PM, Michael Grønager wrote:
My main concern when it comes to introducing other protocols is that they might
never be standard (I think a great number of clients will emerge - and this
would be a thing to compete on). If it is part of the p2p network it will be a
seamless standard and easy for everyone to use, even across different clients.
But I share your concern on the
/M
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
[Bitcoin-development] Wallet encryption issue
Sorry guys, I just realized I should've posted this to the dev list first, before/instead of putting it on the forums. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51474 *I still have some of my private keys in plaintext. *I would guess that BSDDB sometimes will overwrite data by just discarding a pointer to the old data, and writing the replacement to a new location within the file. In that case, examining the file with a BSDDB library tool is not going to find this problem. You'll have to examine the raw binary file as I did. Instructions for verifying this problem are in the post. Can someone please verify that this is a real problem? (and should we maybe remove my post until there's a remediation plan? This is problem the best kind of problem to disclose after it's fixed) -Alan -- RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
