rich1.0npub1xauxlsk47g5nrj205uz9vp9l4s72s7z2dwlwenw2r573mjsnvxnqcslhw9https://nostr.ae/npub1xauxlsk47g5nrj205uz9vp9l4s72s7z2dwlwenw2r573mjsnvxnqcslhw9njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-10-01 📝 Original message:Just a simple suggestion since the signature format is changed. Can this be designed so that possible future hard forks can simply change 1 constant in the code and turn on cross chain replay protection? On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:05 PM Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Clean stack should be eliminated for other possible future uses, the most > obvious of which is recursive tail-call for general computation capability. > I’m not arguing for that at this time, just arguing that we shouldn’t > prematurely cut off an easy implementation of such should we want to. Clean > stack must still exist as policy for future soft-fork safety, but being a > consensus requirement was only to avoid witness malleability, which > committing to the size of the witness also accomplishes. > > Committing to the number of witness elements is fully sufficient, and > using the number of elements avoids problems of not knowing the actual size > in bytes at the time of signing, e.g. because the witness contains a merkle > proof generated by another party from an unbalanced tree, and unbalanced > trees are expected to be common (so that elements can be placed higher in > the tree in accordance with their higher expected probability of usage). > Other future extensions might also have variable-length proofs. > > > On Sep 30, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote: > > > > Should it perhaps commit to the length of the serialised witness data > instead > > or additionally? Now that signatures are no longer variable-length, > that'd be > > possible... > > > > As far as tail-call needs are concerned, CLEANSTACK wouldn't have been > checked > > until AFTER the tail-call in the first draft. But I suppose eliminating > it for > > other possible future purposes is still useful. > > > > Luke > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171001/4e1497ee/attachment-0001.html>