Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT

2018-12-18 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:21:10AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:06 PM Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:50:24PM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:13 PM Johnson Lau wrote: > >     The current

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Safer sighashes and more granular SIGHASH_NOINPUT

2018-12-18 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:07:28AM +1030, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > And is it worthwhile doing the mask complexity, rather than just > removing the commitment to script with NOINPUT? It *feels* safer to > restrict what scripts we can sign, but is it? If it's not safer in practice,

[bitcoin-dev] Schnorr and taproot (etc) upgrade

2018-12-18 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
Hi *, (All the following is heavily informed by talking with other smart people, and while probably all the clever ideas are theirs, any nonsense and mistakes are certainly my own. I guess I'll pretend there were Chatham House rules or something to avoid any blame/responsibility accidently