📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24
📝 Original message:What is required to spend bitcoin is that input be provided to the UTXO
script that causes it to return true. What Chris is proposing breaks the
programmatic nature of the requirement, replacing it with a requirement
that the secret be known. Granted, the secret is the only requirement in
most cases, but there is no built-in assumption that the script always
requires only that secret.
This idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all
UTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be
a signature of some kind of message to that effect. I imagine the cost of
re-scanning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extra
mining fee for any transaction that used this opcode.
Please be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email makes
clear.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY**
>
>
> Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting
> near near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links):
> http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com>; and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net>; (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com>; which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>;.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/0b0a26f2/attachment.html>;
Dave Scotese [ARCHIVE] /
npub15w…maru8
2023-06-07 19:45:13
in reply to nevent1q…8pr7
Author Public Key
npub15wz8j5cse6sexlw6f5q7arc5efe5hxn6kcxxyy222et8qms4u3lsemaru8Published at
2023-06-07 19:45:13Event JSON
{
"id": "5d5966133613855670c5d788bca2d4c199588fe808165f225d77de420b124501",
"pubkey": "a384795310cea1937dda4d01ee8f14ca734b9a7ab60c62114a5656706e15e47f",
"created_at": 1686159913,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"bf4809cae02e8295ff1b511081cddea17791dccae1a87a2654644d42bcc4eb89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"533e46d0a04215e2949d4b17d3d67493e865c03be0e3986c08c9637b3156ea53",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"62ddcb547224b421822b62845fb1bbd77c838b924bd022814cfcbe25b7a07475"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-24\n📝 Original message:What is required to spend bitcoin is that input be provided to the UTXO\nscript that causes it to return true. What Chris is proposing breaks the\nprogrammatic nature of the requirement, replacing it with a requirement\nthat the secret be known. Granted, the secret is the only requirement in\nmost cases, but there is no built-in assumption that the script always\nrequires only that secret.\n\nThis idea could be applied by having the wildcard signature apply to all\nUTXOs that are of a standard form and paid to a particular address, and be\na signature of some kind of message to that effect. I imagine the cost of\nre-scanning the UTXO set to find them all would justify a special extra\nmining fee for any transaction that used this opcode.\n\nPlease be blunt about any of my own misunderstandings that this email makes\nclear.\n\nOn Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e **OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY**\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting\n\u003e near near \"09:50\" (apologies for having no anchor links):\n\u003e http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-11-24.log\n\u003e\n\u003e - Bryan\n\u003e http://heybryan.org/\n\u003e 1 512 203 0507\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nI like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a\ntechie?\nI own Litmocracy \u003chttp://www.litmocracy.com\u003e and Meme Racing\n\u003chttp://www.memeracing.net\u003e (in alpha).\nI'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist \u003chttp://www.voluntaryist.com\u003e which\nnow accepts Bitcoin.\nI also code for The Dollar Vigilante \u003chttp://dollarvigilante.com/\u003e.\n\"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules\" - Satoshi\nNakamoto\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151124/0b0a26f2/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "9915f9f1858249d24c41bce5b3f60b54401c1536c9edf7e873dc48d48f5fcf4323b18e8cd8a0f606ff8c751b1fd2cbb4db56dccc3e3d367b5acf428953e58046"
}