Topic: What is the status of BIP62? (Read 809 times)
BIP62 is neither necessary or sufficient for micropayment channels; CLTV is sufficient and nearly necessary. Thats next in the pipeline; unfortunately BitcoinXT has screwed up the soft-fork pipeline by getting a bunch of nodes deployed that produce super high version numberss, breaking the existing CLTV code... so people are working on revising those proposals now.
I agree, this needs to be prioritized!
There are 7 new rules in BIP62:
1. Canonically encoded ECDSA signatures
2. Non-push operations in scriptSig
3. Push operations in scriptSig of non-standard size type
4. Zero-padded number pushes
5. Inherent ECDSA signature malleability
6. Superfluous scriptSig operations
7. Inputs ignored by OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
1 has been deployed with BIP66.
2, 3, 4, 6, 7 are non-standard
5 is still allowed
Is there any schedule to deploy all the rules and what are the obstacles? Fixing malleability is very important for micropayment channels. Since we won't have a CHECKSIG 2.0 (as described in the Lightning Network paper) anytime soon, BIP62 is the easiest short term solution.
1. Canonically encoded ECDSA signatures
2. Non-push operations in scriptSig
3. Push operations in scriptSig of non-standard size type
4. Zero-padded number pushes
5. Inherent ECDSA signature malleability
6. Superfluous scriptSig operations
7. Inputs ignored by OP_CHECKMULTISIG and OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
1 has been deployed with BIP66.
2, 3, 4, 6, 7 are non-standard
5 is still allowed
Is there any schedule to deploy all the rules and what are the obstacles? Fixing malleability is very important for micropayment channels. Since we won't have a CHECKSIG 2.0 (as described in the Lightning Network paper) anytime soon, BIP62 is the easiest short term solution.
Jump to: