> On 23 Nov 2018, at 5:40 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes: >> Commiting to just the sequence numbers seems really weird to me; it >> only really prevents you from adding inputs, since you could still >> replace any input that was meant to be there by almost any arbitrary >> other transaction... > > It's a really roundabout way of committing to the inputs, I > agree. I'm actually wondering if it makes sense to correct that > additional blanked field in BIP118 at all since it seems there is no > real use-case for NOINPUT that doesn't involve blanking the > `hashSequence` as well.
I think we just make it as simple as this: Always commit to sequence of the same input. Commit to hashSequence if and only if all inputs and all outputs are signed. The next-generation SIGHASH will introduce not only NOINPUT, but also signing of fees, previous scriptPubKey, and all input values, etc. So it won’t be a simple hack over BIP143. BIP118 might be better changed to be an informational BIP, focus on the rationale and examples of NOINPUT, and be cross-referenced with the consensus BIP. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
