> Whitelisting the basic CHECKMULTISIG form (assuming it can be made to > work) seems uncontroversial, why not do it today?
That seems like the right way forward. I just wrote a unit test and stepped through the CHECKMULTISIG code to see exactly what the bug is, and the offending line is: 797 int isig = ++i; 798 i += nSigsCount; It should be just int isig = i; The result is CHECKMULTISIG expects one extra item on the stack, so the workaround would be a standard transaction type of the form: scriptSig: OP_0 sig1...m scriptPubKey: m pubkey1...n n OP_CHECKMULTISIG -- -- Gavin Andresen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K The only unified storage solution that offers unified management Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient. Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
