On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 11:49 PM Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I feel like this breaks the central idea of PSBT that a PSBT contains
> everything you need to construct a transaction.
> This would rely on parties in the transaction having state and remembering
> things which I don't think i
>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 19:09, Wilmer Paulino via bitcoin-dev
>> wrote:
>> ...
>> Nodes on the network can not generally be trusted to send valid ("reject")
>> messages, so this should only ever be used when connected to a trusted node.
>
> Nodes in the network generally rely on the assumption
Hi Marco,
> At this time, I am not aware of any software that requires this feature, and I
> would like to remove if from Bitcoin Core to make the codebase slimmer, easier
> to understand and maintain.
Neutrino[1], a light client implementation that uses BIPs 157 and 158,
currently relies on rece
Bitcoin-transactions did use this "feature", but does not rely on it any
longer since I observed some strange behavior sometimes (no reject
message for bad tx, with suprnova for example as far as I remember),
then it doublechecks using getdata to see if the tx is in mempool
Indeed you can't trust
> * If the sighash type byte (ie last byte in a signature being evaluated
> during the execution of OP_CHECKSIG[VERIFY] or OP_CHECKMULTISIG[VERIFY])
> is anything other than 1, 2, 3, 0x81, 0x82, or 0x83, the script
> execution fails. This does not apply to 0-length signature stack elements.
>
The
> * OP_CODESEPARATOR in non-BIP 143 scripts fails the script validation.
> This includes OP_CODESEPARATORs in unexecuted branches of if statements,
> similar to other disabled opcodes, but unlike OP_RETURN.
>
OP_CODESEPARATOR is the only mechanism available that allows users to sign
which particul
I can't say I'm particularly married to this idea (hence the alternate
proposal in the original email), but at the same time the lack of
existing transactions using these bits (and the redundancy thereof -
they don't *do* anything special) seems to be pretty strong indication
that they are not
Replies inline.
Matt
On 3/7/19 3:03 PM, Russell O'Connor wrote:
* OP_CODESEPARATOR in non-BIP 143 scripts fails the script validation.
This includes OP_CODESEPARATORs in unexecuted branches of if
statements,
similar to other disabled opcodes, but unlike OP_RETURN.
OP_CODESEPA
Replies inline.
On 3/7/19 10:44 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
On Wednesday 06 March 2019 21:39:15 Matt Corallo wrote:
I'd like to ask the BIP editor to assign a BIP number.
Needs a Backward Compatibility section, and should have a bips repo PR opened
after discussion on the ML.
Oops, I guess most
Hi Andrew,
I think having some of these extensions would be great.
On 3/6/19 1:08 PM, Andrew Poelstra via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 1. Add an field to PSBT_GLOBAL_UNSIGNED_TX to the global table which contains
>just a txid of the unsigned transaction, for bandwidth savings in case
>signers ha
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 11:13, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> If Satoshi wanted the currency units named after him, he would simply
> have done it. I think this behaviour seems creepy and is harmful to
> Bitcoin.
>
I don't believe the will of Satos
Yes, I'm talking about P2P connections.
First and foremost, reject messages are an indication that the
transaction isn't going to confirm. Without these messages, we'd need to
revert to pre-BIP61 behaviour of using a timeout for reception of
network confirmations.
Regarding the content, these cas
On Wednesday 06 March 2019 21:39:15 Matt Corallo wrote:
> I'd like to ask the BIP editor to assign a BIP number.
Needs a Backward Compatibility section, and should have a bips repo PR opened
after discussion on the ML.
> * The 4th change (making non-standard signature hash types invalid)
> may
Can you elaborate a bit on what kind of reject messages your users are getting?
I assume the users wallet connects directly to the Bitcoin p2p network?
What does the wallet do when a transaction is rejected? Does it forget about it
(that seems unsafe) or compose another one (with overlapping inp
It is highly unikely that non-engineers will adopt scientific notation or
mili/nano/pico prefixes for money.
All common currencies either have no change or one that is 1/100 of the base
unit.
This is the convention that practically all existing finance software and
non-Bitcoin related UI that
The following is a proposed BIP to soft-fork out some oddities in the
current Bitcoin consensus rules, resolving several vulnerabilities, in
addition to fixing the timewarp vulnerability. I'd like to ask the BIP
editor to assign a BIP number.
The latest version of the BIP can be found at
http
Hi all,
I'd like to start initial discussion about an extension to BIP174 [1] to add
some fields that I've found myself wanting when using PSBT in practice. For
now I'll just list the things that I'd like to see, and if we can come up
with a stable list then I'll try to write up a more formal dra
In case anyone missed the announcement: bitcoinj 0.15, with support for
native segregated witness, has recently been released.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoinj-announce/X6Zv1NSFxOk/KJACzHZMAQAJ
For operability testing, I just released new versions 7.0 of Bitcoin
Wallet. For now, they stil
Reject messages cannot be replaced for debugging user problems. At least
unless you plan to make RPC or bitcoind logfiles available via the P2P
protocol (both probably not a good idea).
The typical case is, I get mailed a wallet logfile with reject messages
and that's all I have. I cannot access t
Thank you for the answer.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 18:36, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Amine Chakak via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > The idea has been floated around to switch to satoshi as a base unit.
>
> If Satoshi wanted the currency units named after him, he would simp
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Amine Chakak via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The idea has been floated around to switch to satoshi as a base unit.
If Satoshi wanted the currency units named after him, he would simply
have done it. I think this behaviour seems creepy and is harmful to
Bitcoin.
> The lig
21 matches
Mail list logo
