On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wui...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Not related to this change but the definition of rule 4 may not be >> sufficiently specific-- without a definition someone could reasonably >> reach a different conclusion about OP_1NEGATE being a "push >> operation", or might even decide any operation which added to the >> stack was a "push operation". > > Good catch - I'll write an update soon.
>> Perhaps the rules should be reordered so that the applicable to all >> transactions ones are contiguous and first? > Ok. >>> The first six and part of the seventh can be fixed by extra consensus rules. >> >> This should clarify that the scriptPubkey can still specify rules that >> are inherently malleable [...] > I'll try to reword. I've sent out a new pull request (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/102/files) that: * Changes the order of the rules. * Adds more reference documentation about minimal pushes and number encodings. * Clarified that extra consensus rules cannot prevent someone from creating outputs whose spending transactions will be malleable. I haven't changed which rules are mandatory in v3, so this is a pure clarification & reorganization of the text. Any comments? -- Pieter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
