Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master'

1 files changed, 102 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/bip-0131.mediawiki b/bip-0131.mediawiki
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1efe713
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bip-0131.mediawiki
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+<pre>
+  BIP: 131
+  Title: "Coalescing Transaction" Specification (wildcard inputs)
+  Author: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
+  Status: Draft
+  Type: Standards Track
+  Created: 2015-11-30
+</pre>
+
+==Abstract==
+
+This specification defines a new type of transaction that supplements (not replaces)
+normal "non coalescing" bitcoin transactions.
+
+==Motivation==
+
+Normal "non-coalescing" Bitcoin Transactions have one large inefficiency: When you want to spend
+from multiple inputs with the exact same scriptPubKey, you have to list each
+input separately, along with the same signature multiple times, even though the signature expresses the same information.
+This bloats the transaction size and makes it expensive to spend from small value inputs.
+
+Because small value inputs are expensive to send, they remain in the UTXO pool
+which full nodes have to keep around. It is believed that long term increase of the UTXO
+set can have negative scaling consequences on the network.
+
+If maximum blocksize is made to increase *slower* than the actual number of transactions bitcoin users are sending
+to the network, this problem is projected to get worse. In other words, as transaction
+fees increase, the minimum economical value of a spending a UTXO will increase.
+
+==Specification==
+
+=== Redefinition of Transaction version ===
+
+First, this BIP redefines the version field on transactions. The first four bytes
+are defined as the version number, while the last four bytes are defined as the
+transaction type. Type "0000" denotes normal transactions, and "0001" defines
+coalescing transaction.
+
+Examples:
+
+version 1 transaction with normal inputs:
+    version: 10000000
+
+version 2 transaction with normal inputs:
+    version: 20000000
+
+version 2 transaction with coalescing inputs:
+    version: 20000001
+
+Essentially the last bit in the version field is set to 1 to enable wildcard inputs for all
+inputs present in the transaction.
+
+=== Wildcard inputs ===
+
+A coalescing transaction is formulated the exact same way as a version 1 transaction
+with one exception: each input is treated as a "wildcard input".
+
+A wildcard input beings the value of all inputs with the exact same scriptPubKey
+in a block lower or equal to the block the wildcard input is confirmed into.
+
+== Changes needed to implement ==
+
+The bitcoin code needs to be modified in three places in order to handle Coalescing Transactions.
+
+1. <b>Full Node Coalescing validation</b> - When a full node receives a coalescing transaction, it has to
+aggregate the value of all the UTXOs in the blockchain older than the input
+with the same scriptPubKey. If this value is greater than or equal to the
+amount of all outputs, then that coalescing transaction is valid and can be propagated.
+
+2. <b>Full Node Non-Coalescing validation</b> - When a non-coalescing transaction comes in, the code needs to be modified
+to check if each input has not been spent by a coalescing transaction. If there exist any
+coalescing transaction in the blockchain with the same scriptPubKey found in a block *after* that input,
+then the UTXO has been spent and the transaction is invalid.
+
+3. <b>Wallet</b> - The user facing wallet portion of the reference client should notify
+the user when their wallet contains many UTXOs that qualify it to benefit from
+a coalescing transaction. Wallets should not simply replace non-coalescing transactions
+with coalescing transactions in all instances.
+
+== Isn't this BIP bad because it encourage address re-use? ==
+
+Address re-use comes in two forms: re-use by the ''sender'', and re-use by the ''receiver''.
+
+Re-use by the sender is basically using the same address for the change output. This is generally considered bad
+since people looking through your transaction history can determine who you do business with. When
+you generate a new address for every change, your privacy is conserved as it is impossible to know which
+output is a recipient, and which output is the change output. This BIP has '''no effect''' on re-use
+by the sender.
+
+On the other hand, address re-use by the ''receiver'' occurs under completely different circumstances.
+When you publish an address and have multiple people send to that address, you are engaging in address re-use
+from the receiver. This activity has historically been considered bad because it leads to re-using a private key.
+When you re-use a private key too many times, you run the risk of an attacker performing statistical analysis
+on the multiple signatures, which can lead to an attacker finding out your private key.
+
+This BIP introduces a way to spend multiple inputs ''without'' re-using the private key. In a sense, this BIP
+fixes the problem that makes address re-use bad for the receiver. After this BIP becomes implemented
+and deployed, address re-use by the receiver will no longer be considered bad form.
+
+==Copyright==
+
+This document is placed in the public domain.