Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev writes:
> Ideally, a 3rd-party can be handed a transaction which can encompass all
> prior states in a compact way. For currently-designed Segregated Witness
> transactions, this requires storing all previous signatures, which can
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:32:34AM +, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > I'm interested in input and in the level of receptiveness to this. If
> > there is interest, I'll
Hi Bryan,
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 07:34:24PM -0600, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> Well if you are bothering to draft up a BIP about that SIGHASH flag,
> then perhaps also consider some other SIGHASH flag types as well while
> you are at it?
I'll take a look at those proposals when drafting the BIP. I
Hi Greg,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 01:32:34AM +, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I think to be successful we must be absolutely ruthless about changes
> that go in there beyond the absolute minimum needed for the safe
> deployment of segwit... so I think this should probably be constructed
> as a new
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Joseph Poon wrote:
> This would be achieved using a SIGHASH flag, termed SIGHASH_NOINPUT. It
> does not include as part of the signature, the outpoint being spent
> (txid and index), nor the amount. It however, would include the spent
> outpoint's script as part of
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Joseph Poon via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I'm interested in input and in the level of receptiveness to this. If
> there is interest, I'll write up a draft BIP in the next couple days.
The design of segwit was carefully
As Segregated Witness will be merged soon as a solution for transaction
malleability, especially with multi-party adversarial signatures, there
may be an additional use case/functionality which is helpful for
Lightning Network and possibly other Bitcoin use cases. This requires a
new SIGHASH flag