On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:03 AM Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:07:30PM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Given that we want to move away from OP_CODESEPARATOR, because each call
> to
> > this operation effectively takes O(script-size) time, we need a
> repla
>Even still, each call to OP_CODESEPARATOR / OP_CHECKSIG pair requires
>recomputing a new #5. scriptCode from BIP 143, and hence computes a new
>transaction digest.
In the existing sighash (i.e. legacy and BIP143), there are 6 canonical SIGHASH
types: 1, 2, 3, 0x81, 0x82, 0x83. In consensus, ho
Anthony Towns writes:
> Commiting to just the sequence numbers seems really weird to me; it
> only really prevents you from adding inputs, since you could still
> replace any input that was meant to be there by almost any arbitrary
> other transaction...
It's a really roundabout way of committing
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:15:44PM +0100, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> One minor thing that I noticed a while ago and that I meant
> to fix on BIP118 is that `hashSequence` does not need to be blanked for
> eltoo to work (since where it is needed we also use `sighash_single`),
> so I'
