Good points, these are good optimisations if we propose such a new opcode! I'm still pondering whether this will be useful enough or if finney attacks completely ruin all use-cases...
Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 à 07:24, ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> a écrit : > Good morning t-bast, > > > > - A script-path spend with the following script (and only that > script): > > > OP_SWAP OP_DUP <R> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_SWAP <P> OP_CHECKSIG > > > > > > > Why not this: > > > > <R> OP_SWAP OP_CHECKSPLITSIG > > > > ? > > > > Since `R` is constrained to be fixed anyway, why repeat `R` twice, once > in the script and once in the witness stack? > > For that matter, since we are far more likely to have a constant `R` than > a constant `s` maybe you should instead propose that `OP_CHECKSPLITSIG` be > given `<s> <R> <P> OP_CHECKSPLITSIG`, so that a fixed-`R` single-show > signature is just `<R> <P> OP_CHECKSPLITSIG`. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
