# Gavin Andresen
# 2011-10-02 15:45:16
# https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46538.msg554333#msg554333

RE: be wary of OP_EVAL: @p{par}

Agreed, we need to think hard about whether or not attackers could Do Evil Things like create an innocuous little script that pushed an infinite amount of data onto the stack or something  (lets see... Serialized(@p{lt}OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_EVAL@s{gt}) OP_DUP OP_EVAL would do that...).  Disallowing recursion (no OP_EVALs allowed in the OP_EVAL data) would, I think, prevent all of that mischief. @p{par}

RE: OP_EVAL means no more IsStandard:  I agree with ByteCoin.  A ScriptSig would be IsStandard if it's ScriptPubKey was IsStandard, and if it's ScriptPubKey was the generic OP_EVAL form then the last value pushed by the ScriptSig would also have to pass the IsStandard test (deserialized into a Script). @p{par}

RE: data should always be protected by a hash script:  I think the answer is "don't be an idiot" and "use standard transaction types that have been banged on / thought through." @p{par}

RE: sender/recipient negotiating a transaction: I think that may become the most common way of creating a transaction, but I don't think it will ever be the only way. @p{par}