Hi all,
We are making public our latest work on Erlay, an efficient transaction relay
protocol for Bitcoin.
It is available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10518
The main idea is that instead of announcing every transaction to every peer,
announcements are only sent directly over a small numbe
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:07 PM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I realized recently that my segwit implementation was not correct,
> basically some time ago, wrongly reading the specs (and misleaded by
> what follows), I thought that scriptsig would
Well, OK, then back to non standard stuff and bitcoin considers that an
OP_1 or empty scriptpubkey is something that can exist, sipa does not
like my questions on this list but this is a bit frightening in fact to
see that after 10 years an OP_1 scriptpubkey or empty one can be a use
case, thanks T
The scriptSig when evaluated populates the stack so opcodes can operate
on them. A witness is essentially a list of data elements, quite similar
to the script stack (the witness is passed in as the script stack in fact)
OP_0 when evaluated pushes a _zero length_ value onto the stack, hence
the 00
I did not phrase correctly in fact, what I meant is: if the validator
sees empty or witness script in scriptSig, then this is a segwit input,
and doing this one by one the validator can associate the correct segwit
data to the correct segwit input, so 00 does not look to be needed
Le 26/05/2019 à
On Sun, May 26, 2019, 07:07 Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I realized recently that my segwit implementation was not correct,
> basically some time ago, wrongly reading the specs (and misleaded by
> what follows), I thought that scriptsig would go i
OK, thanks, understood for OP_0 but still for the 00 number of witness
data for non segwit inputs the one that is doing the transaction knows
which inputs are segwit or not, then parsing the transaction you can
associate the correct input to the correct witness data, without the
need of 00, so I mu
Empty scriptSig doesn’t imply segwit input: if the previous scriptPubKey is
OP_1 (which does not allow witness), it could still be spent with an empty
scriptSig
Similarly, a scriptSig looking like a spend of P2SH-segwit doesn’t imply segwit
input: if the previous scriptPubKey is empty, it could
This is not how it works. While the transaction creator may know which inputs
are segwit, the validators have no way to tell until they look up the UTXO set.
In a transaction, all information about an input the validators have is the
36-byte outpoint (txid + index). Just by looking at the outpoi
> On 26 May 2019, at 7:56 AM, Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> I realized recently that my segwit implementation was not correct,
> basically some time ago, wrongly reading the specs (and misleaded by
> what follows), I thought that scriptsig would go into witness data as it
> was, bu
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 05:01:21PM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Bitcoin Script appears designed to be a flexible programmable system that
> provides generic features to be composed to achieve various purposes.
Counterpoint: haven't the flexibly designed parts of script mostly
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:17:31PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>I prefer to
>>change the bip introduction to expliclty shout "THESE SIGNATURE
>>HASHES ARE UNSAFE FOR NORMAL WALLET USAGE.", and maybe rename it
>>SIGHASH_UNSAFE_ANYPREVOUT.
>
>> 4. "Rebinding
12 matches
Mail list logo
