> So what exactly was the OP_RETURN bug anyway? I know it has something to
> do with not executing the scriptSig and scriptPubKey separately
> (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58579.msg691432#msg691432) but
> commit 7f7f07 that you reference isn't in the tree, nor is 0.3.5 tagged.
>
It was
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:42:37PM -0500, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > Again, thoughts?
> >
>
> First: I really like the fidelity bond concept, and want to see it happen.
>
> RE: OP_RETURN : I've got a knee-jerk opposition to the OP_RETU
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> Again, thoughts?
>
First: I really like the fidelity bond concept, and want to see it happen.
RE: OP_RETURN : I've got a knee-jerk opposition to the OP_RETURN opcode,
because it was the cause of the nastiest bug ever Bitcoin history. So
In my fidelity bond protocol (1) I'm proposing the use of two possible
new features:
The first is the use of OP_RETURN at the end of a scriptPubKey to
designate that the txout can be immediately pruned as it is obviously
unspendable. My use-case is the publish part of the two-step
publish-sacrific
4 matches
Mail list logo
