A technical point about SIGHASH_NOINPUT: It seems like a more general and technically simpler to implement idea would be to have a boolean specifying whether the inputs listed must be all of them (the way it works normally) or a subset of everything. It feels like a similar boolean should be made for outputs as well. Or maybe a single boolean should apply to both. In any case, one could always use SIGHASH_SUBSET and not specify any inputs and that would have the same effect as SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Given the general enthusiasm, and lack of major criticism, for the > `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` proposal, I'd like to formally ask the BBEs (benevolent > BIP editors) to be assigned a BIP number. I have hacked together a > simple implementation of the hashing implementation in Bitcoin Core  > though I think it's unlikely to sail through review, and given the lack > of ground-work on witness V1 scripts, I can't really test it now, and > only the second commit is part of the implementation itself. > > One issue that was raised off list was that some fork coins have used > sighash 0x40 as FORKID. This does not conflict with this proposal since > the proposal only applies to segwit transactions, which the fork coins > have explicitly disabled :-) > > I'm looking forward to discussing how to we can move forward to > implementing this proposal, and how we can combine multiple proposals > into the next soft-fork. > > Cheers, > Christian > >  https://github.com/cdecker/bitcoin/tree/noinput > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > email@example.com > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev