Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great Consensus Cleanup

Hi Matt, On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 1:35 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > Replies inline. > > On 3/8/19 3:57 PM, Russell O'Connor wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:50 PM Matt Corallo > > wrote: > > It's very easy to construct a practical script using OP_CODESEPARATOR. > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great Consensus Cleanup

Hi Sjors, On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:12 PM Sjors Provoost wrote: > Transaction weight currently doesn't consider OP codes, it only considers > if bytes are part of the witness. Changing that to something more akin to > Ethereums gas pricing sounds too complicated to even consider. > I did say per

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Signet

Hi Karl-Johan, my two cents: At Po.et we use regtest to simulate reorgs in integration tests in Travis / CircleCI. It has proved quite useful. In general regtest for automated testing has given us all we needed so far, but I admit we have a rather simple use of Bitcoin right now (colored coins).

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Signet

To make testing easier, it may make sense to keep the existing block header format (and PoW) and instead apply the signature rules to some field in the coinbase transaction. This means SPV clients (assuming they only connect to honest/trusted nodes) work as-is. A previous idea regarding reorgs

Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great Consensus Cleanup

Aside from the complexity issues here, note that for a user to be adversely affect, they probably have to have pre-signed lock-timed transactions. Otherwise, in the crazy case that such a user exists, they should have no problem claiming the funds before activation of a soft-fork (and just switc