BIP 141: Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)#265
Conversation
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
segwit
branch
5 times, most recently
from
78eb898 to
7f19639
Compare
CodeShark
force-pushed
the
segwit
branch
4 times, most recently
from
faf8ab2 to
ec059d1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the comment refers to the p2p serialization and relay stuff - what follows is the consensus specification, which WILL be in this document.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was confusing to me. You're not talking about Version 0 and Version 1 witness programs here are you? Aren't you just talking about whether or not the witness program is also embedded in a P2SH regardless of what version witness it is?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, the description is somewhat inaccurate. I'll edit it
Clarify Backward compatibility and separating version byte and witness program
Fixed typos.
|
related BIPs, for easy reference;
and WIP code: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The segwit update seems like the perfect moment to get rid of that CHECKMULTISIG bug where one item too many is popped off the stack. Although probably should be done in #270.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No bikeshedding about what changes to make, please :(
We have script versions now, so we do not need to fix all inconveniences at
once.
There are two exceptions to this self-imposed rule:
- Changing the sighashing to not be O(n^2), as it wouldn't be a bugfix to a
worst-case scenario if it's optional for an attacker. - Amount signing, as I didn't expect that people would accept any sighash
change proposal that did not include this...
|
is there a reason why the transaction version is not bumped for the new structure? |
|
Yes. There is no need:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: use OP_0 <DUP HASH160 {20-byte-hash-value} EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIG>?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's shown in the deserialized script
12 participants
BIP number requested,