On Jun 8, 2016 18:46, "Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 8:23:51 AM Johnson Lau wrote:
> > If someday 32 bytes hash is deemed to be unsafe, the txid would also be
> > unsafe and a hard fork might be needed. Therefore, I don’
On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 8:23:51 AM Johnson Lau wrote:
> If someday 32 bytes hash is deemed to be unsafe, the txid would also be
> unsafe and a hard fork might be needed. Therefore, I don’t see how a
> witness program larger than 40 bytes would be useful in any case (as it is
> more expensive an
> On 8 Jun 2016, at 15:29, Luke Dashjr wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:57:36 AM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Why not make it even bigger, e.g. 75 bytes?
>
> I don't see a sufficient answer to this question. Pieter explained why >75
> would be annoying, but 75 seems like it sho
On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:57:36 AM Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Why not make it even bigger, e.g. 75 bytes?
I don't see a sufficient answer to this question. Pieter explained why >75
would be annoying, but 75 seems like it should be fine.
> In any case, since scripts with a 1-byte pu
Please note that the segregated witness (BIP141) consensus rule is updated.
Originally, a witness program is a scriptPubKey or redeemScript that consists
of a 1-byte push opcode (OP_0 to OP_16) followed by a data push between 2 and
32 bytes. The definition is now extended to 2 to 40 bytes:
https
