[bitcoin-dev] OP_CHECKWILDCARDSIGVERIFY or "Wildcard Inputs" or "Coalescing Transactions"
dscotese at litmocracy.com
Tue Nov 24 23:28:33 UTC 2015
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
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:
> Some (minor) discussion of this idea in -wizards earlier today starting
> near near "09:50" (apologies for having no anchor links):
> - Bryan
> 1 512 203 0507
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev