diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'bip-0012.mediawiki')
| -rw-r--r-- | bip-0012.mediawiki | 4 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/bip-0012.mediawiki b/bip-0012.mediawiki index 70069d6..bd3d88c 100644 --- a/bip-0012.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0012.mediawiki @@ -43,11 +43,11 @@ OP_EVAL allows the receiver of bitcoins to specify how they can be spent when th If ''serialized script'' is a large or complicated multi-signature script, then the burden of paying for it (in increased transaction fees due to more signature operations or transaction size) is shifted from the sender to the receiver. -The main objection to OP_EVAL is that it adds complexity, and complexity is the enemy of security. Also, evaluating data as code has a long record of being a source of security vulnerabilties. +The main objection to OP_EVAL is that it adds complexity, and complexity is the enemy of security. Also, evaluating data as code has a long record of being a source of security vulnerabilities. That same argument can be applied to the existing Bitcoin 'scripting' system; scriptPubKeys are transmit as data across the network and are then interpreted by every bitcoin implementation. OP_EVAL just moves the data that will be interpreted. It is debatable whether or not the entire idea of putting a little interpreted expression evaluation language at the core of Bitcoin was brilliant or stupid, but the existence of OP_EVAL does not make the expression language less secure. -There is a 1-confirmation attack on old clients that interepret OP_EVAL as a no-op, but it is expensive and difficult in practice. The attack is: +There is a 1-confirmation attack on old clients that interpret OP_EVAL as a no-op, but it is expensive and difficult in practice. The attack is: # Attacker creates an OP_EVAL transaction that is valid as seen by old clients, but invalid for new clients. # Attacker also creates a standard transaction that spends the OP_EVAL transaction, and pays the victim. |