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

Hi Matt, On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:23 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > I think you may have misunderstood part of the motivation. Yes, part of > the motivation *is* to remove OP_CODESEPARATOR wholesale, greatly > simplifying the theoretical operation of checksig operations (thus somewhat > simplifying

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

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:39 PM Jacob Eliosoff wrote: > Also, if future disabling isn't the point of making a tx type like > OP_CODESEPARATOR non-standard - what is? If we're committed to indefinite > support of these oddball features, what do we gain by making them hard to > use/mine? > The

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

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:42 AM Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Also, if future disabling isn't the point of making a tx type like > OP_CODESEPARATOR non-standard - what is? If we're committed to indefinite > support of these oddball features, what do we gain by making them hard to >

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

Also, if future disabling isn't the point of making a tx type like OP_CODESEPARATOR non-standard - what is? If we're committed to indefinite support of these oddball features, what do we gain by making them hard to use/mine? I see questions like "Is it possible someone's existing tx relies on

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

aturday, 9 March 2019 7:14 AM To: Sjors Provoost Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: 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-time

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

Note that even your carve-outs for OP_NOP is not sufficient here - if you were using nSequence to tag different pre-signed transactions into categories (roughly as you suggest people may want to do with extra sighash bits) then their transactions could very easily have become

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

I think you may have misunderstood part of the motivation. Yes, part of the motivation *is* to remove OP_CODESEPARATOR wholesale, greatly simplifying the theoretical operation of checksig operations (thus somewhat simplifying the implementation but also simplifying analysis of future changes,

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

Increasing the OP_CODESEPARATOR weight by 520 (p2sh redeemScript size limit) + 40 (stripped txinput size) + 8 (stripped txoutput size) + a few more (overhead for varints) = 572ish bytes should be enough to completely eliminate any vulnerability caused by OP_CODESEPARATOR within P2SH transactions

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

Hi Jacob, > Huh?! The whole point of non-standardness in this context is to (a) make >>> soft-forking something out safer by derisking miners not upgrading right >>> away and (b) signal something that may be a candidate for soft-forking >>> out so that we get feedback. Who is getting things

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

xfoundation.org < > bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Matt Corallo > via bitcoin-dev > *Sent:* Saturday, 9 March 2019 7:14 AM > *To:* Sjors Provoost > *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great &

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

bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Matt Corallo > via bitcoin-dev > *Sent:* Saturday, 9 March 2019 7:14 AM > *To:* Sjors Provoost > *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great > Consensus Clean

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

Corallo; Russell O'Connor; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] OP_CODESEPARATOR Re: BIP Proposal: The Great > Consensus Cleanup > > > > (1) It has been well documented again and again that there is desire to > remove OP_CODESEPARATOR, (2) it is well-document

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

: 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

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

> > Instead, it is this soft-fork proposal that is unprecedented. Let me > reiterate what I posted in another thread: > > Bitcoin has *never* made a soft-fork, since the time of Satoishi, that > invalidated transactions that send secured inputs to secured outputs > (excluding uses of

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

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

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

> (1) It has been well documented again and again that there is desire to > remove OP_CODESEPARATOR, (2) it is well-documented OP_CODESEPARATOR in > non-segwit scripts represents a rather significant vulnerability in Bitcoin > today, and (3) lots of effort has gone into attempting to find

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

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. IF <2> <2> CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY ELSE CODESEPARATOR CHECKSIGVERFY ENDIF

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

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:50 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > 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 > >

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

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.