-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (BIP147) #8636
Conversation
Need a 0.13.1 tag |
Concept ACK |
concept ACK |
Concept ACK |
needs backport tag. |
This is an implementation of BIP147, which could be found at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/36496946860d71d4460437572e6c4c780b125cad/bip-0147.mediawiki I propose that reviewers should explicitly acknowledge that this pull request is a correct implementation of a specified version of BIP147. So they should review the relevant codes, for example, in interpreter.cpp. This is needed because in #8533 we just focused on the PR, but not the consensus codes being activated. NULLDUMMY should be reasonably simple for everything to do more careful review. For example, a reviewer may use: utACK 482f852, ACK BIP147 3649694 |
utACK 482f852 |
utACK 482f852 This has been active on testnet3 for a few weeks already. Already tACK from previous PR #8533 (comment) |
utACK 482f852 |
utACK 482f852 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code review/utACK 482f852 |
utACK 482f852 |
482f852 Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (Johnson Lau)
Github-Pull: bitcoin#8636 Rebased-From: 482f852
This is backported in #8815, removing tag |
482f852 Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (Johnson Lau)
482f852 Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (Johnson Lau)
482f852 Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (Johnson Lau)
482f852 Implement NULLDUMMY softfork (Johnson Lau)
Alternative to #8533
This will enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_NULLDUMMY on all segwit and non-segwit transactions when segwit is activated with BIP9.
As we may need more time to implement LOW_S softfork in a better way (see #8533 (comment)), the alternative plan is to implement only NULLDUMMY softfork in 0.13.1 and leave LOW_S as a policy at this moment.