On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:24:46PM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote:
Thanks for the careful write up! That matches what I was thinking.
> This analysis suggests that we should amend CODESEPARATORs behaviour to update
> an accumulator (presumably a running hash value), so that all executed
>
After chatting with andytoshi and others, and some more thinking I've been
convinced that my specific concern about other users masquerading other
people pubkeys as their own in complex scripts is actually a non-issue.
No matter what you write in Script (today), you are limited to expressing
some
On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 11:09:54AM -0500, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 3:07 AM Anthony Towns wrote:
> First, it seems like a bad idea for Alice to have put funds behind a
> script she doesn't understand in the first place. There's plenty of
> scripts that are
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 3:07 AM Anthony Towns wrote:
> FWIW, there's discussion of this at
> http://www.erisian.com.au/taproot-bip-review/log-2019-11-28.html#l-65
>
I think variants like signing the position of the enclosing
OP_IF/OP_NOTIF/OP_ELSE of the OP_IF/OP_NOTIF/OP_ELSE block that the
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 04:29:32PM -0500, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The current tapscript proposal requires a signature on the last executed
> CODESEPRATOR position. I'd like to propose an amendment whereby instead of
> signing the last executed CODESEPRATOR position, we simply
