On Monday, 21 November 2016 10:54:19 CET Russell O'Connor wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists. > > linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The OP_CHECKSIG is the most well known and, as its name implies, it > > validates a signature. > > In the new version of 'script' (version 2) the data that is signed is > > changed to be equivalent to the transaction-id. This is a massive > > simplification and also the only change between version 1 and version 2 > > of script. > > I'm a fan of simplicity too; Unfortunately, your proposal above to change > the semantics of OP_CHECKSIG is too naive.
Thanks for your email, Russell. Unfortunately you waited 6 weeks with writing this and the problem you are seeing has been fixed quite some time ago. Thanks again for reviewing, though! -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
