Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Continuing the discussion about noinput / anyprevout

2019-10-02 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> > let me propose the more radical excision, starting with SegWit v1: > > > > - Remove `SIGHASH` from signatures. > > - Put `SIGHASH` on public keys. > > OP_SETPUBKEYSIGHASH > > > > I don't think you could reasonably do this for key path spends -- if > you included the sighash as part of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Continuing the discussion about noinput / anyprevout

2019-10-02 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 02:03:43AM +, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote: > So let me propose the more radical excision, starting with SegWit v1: > * Remove `SIGHASH` from signatures. > * Put `SIGHASH` on public keys. > OP_SETPUBKEYSIGHASH I don't think you could reasonably do this for key

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Continuing the discussion about noinput / anyprevout

2019-10-02 Thread s7r via bitcoin-dev
Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: [SNIP] > > My thinking at the moment (subject to change!) is: > > * anyprevout signatures make the address you're signing for less safe, >which may cause you to lose funds when additional coins are sent to >the same address; this can be avoided if han